90 Miles From Tyranny : 18 Questions CNN Needs To Answer After Getting Busted For Fake News

infinite scrolling

Saturday, December 9, 2017

18 Questions CNN Needs To Answer After Getting Busted For Fake News

Early on Friday, CNN promoted its latest breathless report purporting to show collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. CNN has been extremely invested in the narrative of collusion for the last year.

In June, CNN was forced to pull one of its Russia-Trump conspiracy stories that “did not meet CNN’s editorial standards.” The discredited story was based on a single anonymous source who connected Anthony Scaramucci, a prominent ally of President Trump, to a Russian investment fund managed by a Kremlin-controlled bank. Three journalists who worked on the story were fired.

But many of the other stories CNN pushed had serious problems, including one that claimed fired FBI head Jim Comey would testify he never told President Trump three times that he was not under FBI investigation. That’s precisely what he testified the next morning after the story ran. Still other stories are headlined explosively and presented on-air breathlessly while being quite anodyne. Earlier this week, was a piece headlined, “Exclusive: Previously undisclosed emails show follow-up after Trump Tower meeting.” The piece quietly revealed that Trump Jr. didn’t receive the follow-up and the “follow-up” was in no way incriminating or suggesting treasonous collusion to steal an election. Such stories have been par for the course for the Russia-Trump collusion narrative.

Friday morning’s report — which got the usual suspects extremely excited — was one such story. Broadcast widely on air and online, it intimated that Donald Trump, Jr. was given an advance notice about documents hacked or phished from Democrats before they were publicly available. The story didn’t include any evidence that the random dude who emailed Trump, Jr. was correct, that his email had been opened, that he was connected to Russia, or anything else to justify the excitement that those all-in on the collusion narrative had in response to it.

But more than that, it turned out that CNN completely botched the story. Instead of advance notice that this random dude sent in to Trump affiliates, it was late notice that this random dude sent in. The Washington Post obtained the email and reported that CNN had completely messed up the story, claiming a September 4 date to an email that was actually sent on September 14, a day after the documents were publicly available.

Despite the story being completely meaningless as revised, CNN merely posted a correction instead of a retraction. And CNN’s PR team tweeted out:




CNN has not released any other information. Here are some questions for CNN to answer to restore trust between the reporters on the story, editors on the story, the news organization itself, and viewers and readers.

  1. Did CNN ever see the email before running the story on it
  2. Does CNN believe it’s ethical to write about a document and not let readers and viewers know up front that reporters and editors haven’t seen the document?
  3. If CNN didn’t see the email, who told CNN about it?
  4. Why did CNN believe these sources?
  5. Were they Democratic Members of Congress on the House Select Committee on Intelligence leaking information from this week’s testimony?
  6. Were they staff of these members?
  7. Are these sources independent or in the same office or otherwise related to each other?
  8. What other stories have these individuals sourced for CNN and what dates were they published?
  9. What is being done to...Read More HERE

2 comments:

Kye said...

I figure any thinking Americans have at this point pretty much eliminated CNN as a truthful reporting agency and recognize it for what it is (and always has been) the propaganda arm of the leftist Democrat party and the fifth column of the Deep State.

Barrentaiga said...

"Does CNN believe it’s ethical to write about a document and not let readers and viewers know up front that reporters and editors haven’t seen the document?"
Sure, they write about the Constitution in the same way.