Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-25-2022, 09:58 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.

Bahahahaha! Thanks for proving my point. It sounds to me like it wasn't a risk at all, and they got EXACTLY the reaction that they were hoping for. Thanks for making this reply an easy lay-up for me. 
Ah, no. They were masterful at it and it got EXACTLY what they wanted with the help of a reporter who placed party over his journalistic standards. 
This is how it went for the Clintons.....
1. Take information from an incomplete, inconclusive, and still on going internal investigation and
2. Pass it along to a reporter who
3. Writes a highly suggestive article that details the current information, only mentioning at the end of a VERY long piece that "It’s hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn’t ended" and "We don’t yet know what this server was for" as a way to preserve his "journalistic integrity." Article is then
4. Mentioned in a tweet by the person who fed the reporter the information and is
5. Picked up and reported on by an overzealous and overeager media who reports it as fact because they hate Trump.
You're a smart guy, but you really need to open your eyes and expand your sources beyond what the MSM feeds you. We need well thought out and researched people like you on the Independent side. C'mon on over, it's quite refreshing when you break out of the dichotomy of the two party system. Sure you might have to **gasp** agree with Republicans sometimes, but the feeling of being true to your beliefs instead of twisting, spinning, and bending them to stay aligned with one party is worth it. 
In our world, Trump can be an ego maniac, narcissistic, asshole AND have been smeared, spied on, and conspired against at the same time. BOTH can be true. It's not either/or. 

You are inviting me to the "independent" side??  

What the Clinton campaign "wanted" is pretty clear from Hilary's tweet. "Federal authorities" should investigate the server communication between the Trump server and Alpha Bank, hopefully finding out why Trump is so soft on Putin.  
 
Did the article trigger a Federal investigation? The most Clinton got was that the investigation was finally made public and added to the list of other Trump connections to Russia; That's not "exactly" what they wanted, if they were hoping a federal investigation would finally and definitively connect Trump to Putin 
 
Also, you seem to assume there is something inherently unethical in reporting on "incomplete" investigations. Yet that often is in the public interest.  If a Trump lawyer is arrested for fraud, journalists should not wait until the trial is over to report that. If that lawyer claims he arranged hush money for one of Trump's porn star sexual partners, that is also legitimate news before court findings, especially if the checks are there for the court to view. 
 
I don't understand why you call Foer's Slate article "highly suggestive." A RWM article demanding to know why the MSM is ignoring the Hilary sex trafficking rumors is highly suggestive. But reporting on how computer scientists cross check the results of their investigation into an anomaly everyone agrees is there, certainly is not. Again, HOW does this place "party over journalistic standards"? Select a line from Foer's article which you think exemplifies this, and then show me how an “independent” would rewrite it. If you cannot, then you are just shooting the messenger.
 
The remark "It's hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn't ended" was in reference to Alpha Bank's internal investigation, not the investigation into the link between Trump org. and Alpha Bank, which the scientists were currently working on.
 
All through his article. Foer reports people trying to figure out what is going on, but admitting their bafflement. Yet you claim that it is only at the end of this very long piece that Foer disclaims "We don't yet know what this server was for," as if that uncertainty hadn't been FRONT AND CENTER the entire article.  
 
Nothing in your tweet example of MSM picking up the story establishes anyone was treating the story "as fact" beyond what actually was fact, or were "overzealous and overeager" and motivated only by "Trump hate" rather than legitimate news. One woman asks why AFTER TWO YEARS, there is no answer to the questions of why and what? 
 
The only thing clearly unethical in your Hilary tweet is that her campaign does not disclose who clued the Slate reporter to the story, a story which the NYT was working up anyway.