'Fake news': Trump tweets glee as three CNN journalists resign over Russia story.
'Trump derides network’s ‘phony’ stories after three quit over piece on supposed investigation
into meeting between associate and Russian investor...'
Wow! A frowning comment on the reaction of a victim of a trio of alleged Journalists -who resigned from
their positions at a prominent news outlet due to a fabricated account that supported a narrative the same
news outlet has been pushing before the election of that victim!
It's almost as seeing a victim walk from court with a smile at justice being done...! and we can't have that
when dealing with a wealthy heterosexual white man, can we?
If we disregard the moral and ethical aspirations that professional Journalism is supposed to adhere to and
ignore the thin-line these three people were walking by bringing the company they worked for into disrepute,
some of us may be left with nothing but the idea that these information-gatherers had nothing on their minds
but dislike for the man in the red tie.
Can this be possible...? Could it be that these 'Reporters' acted in the same manner as a couple of spoilt,
middle-class keyboard warriors?!! When trolling a person on the internet, evidence to make the victim feel
bad isn't needed, it's the implication of guilt by the use of confident wording and as I wrote elsewhere in a
thread, many tend to believe the written word.
'...CNN on Monday accepted the resignations of three journalists involved in a story about a supposed investigation
into a pre-inaugural meeting between an associate of Donald Trump and the head of a Russian investment fund.
On Tuesday, around 6.30am ET, Trump tweeted in response: “Wow, CNN had to retract big story on ‘Russia,’ with
3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!”...'
Ah, it's the glee that President Trump is showing that's the problem here, the chuckling of being correct that a type
of 'Witch-hunt' was being played out to anyone who can read, have access to a television or the internet.
I was wrong, President Trump isn't the victim... these poor souls who write falsehoods are the persecuted ones.
I get it now.
'...The president then retweeted a tweet from a “clickbaiter & #FakeNews debunker”, featuring the CNN logo altered
to read “FNN: Fake News Network”. Later, using “stories” in the plural without citing additional examples, he added:
“Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian
stories. Ratings way down!”...'
Why the scoundrel!! President Trump didn't cite examples...? didn't offer proof to his accusations and used poor
grammar?! I'm sure that if this Hotel-owner had set his pussy-grabbing hand at being a Journalist, a News Editor
glancing at his copy would point out his failings in structuring correct sentences and just like CNN, ignored the fact that
the story was actually false.
'...The president then broadened his attack: “So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC?
What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!”
The CNN story in question was posted on the network’s website on Thursday and was removed, with all links disabled,
on Friday night. CNN immediately apologised to Anthony Scaramucci, the Trump transition team member who was
reported to be involved in the meeting.
Following the retraction Scaramucci, tweeted that CNN “did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted.
Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on.”
Shortly after that the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, tweeted: “Hahahahaha, CNN has standards??
More #fakenews defaming my friend @Scaramucci.”..'
I suppose one would expect a loftier response from the thirty-nine year-old son of the President. I mean, the story
was accidentally researched, written, fact-checked, edited, checked again and then printed and prepared for
broadcast.
How could Trump Jr. not see how there was no intent or malice?!
'...In taking down the story, CNN said it did not meet its editorial standards. The episode is a damaging blow for a
network that Trump has frequently derided as “fake news” . The story never made it on to any of CNN’s television
networks...'
I'd like to know when this article falsely accusing their President of espionage and knowingly endangering the nation
of the United States by colluding with an imaginary enemy (the US isn't at war with Russia!)... when it came into the
area of not meeting 'editorial standards'!
Maybe when the three Journalists explained they had no evidence for their claims...? Maybe Editor...? Just askin'
'...The author, Thomas Frank, was among those who resigned, according to a network executive who requested
anonymity because the person was not authorised to discuss personnel issues. Also losing their jobs were Eric
Lichtblau, an assistant managing editor in CNN’s Washington bureau, and Lex Harris, head of the investigations
unit...'
Are we calling the 'network-executive-who-requested-anonymity' an 'unnamed source' again?!
'...The story was quickly questioned both internally and externally, including by the conservative site Breitbart News.
It was determined that the story was posted without going through the expected checks and balances for one of
such sensitivity, the executive said...'
You mean it was either slipped through unnoticed, was posted because the checks and balances don't exist or the
people assigned to analyse the product of this mature occupation were in the bar by the time it was ready.
'...The failure to follow proper procedures is what led to the resignations, the CNN executive said.
It’s not immediately clear what in the story is factually incorrect, or whether CNN would continue to report on the
issue...'
Well, whatever the section in the report was that held doubts, it was prominent enough to warrant three resignations.
So, I'd guess it'll be easy to find... if one has the Journalists' notes, verified sources and witness-agreed statements
that generated the need to write the article.
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=2076]](http://rogue-nation3.com/attachment.php?aid=2076)
Anthony Scaramucci.
'...The retracted story had said the Senate intelligence committee was looking into a 16 January discussion between
Scaramucci and Kirill Dmitriev, whose Russian Direct Investment Fund guides investments by US entities in Russia.
Scaramucci, in the story, said he exchanged pleasantries in a restaurant with Dmitriev.
The report also said that two Democratic senators wanted to know whether Scaramucci had indicated in the meeting
whether sanctions against Russia would be lifted, a decision that could impact the investment fund...'
SOURCE:
Whatever the dubious part of CNN's story must lie within this area of the article, but the illustrious outlet seem unwilling
to indicate which part. Surely, the three men will have shown their superiors their group-gathered evidence and in doing
so, saved their jobs?
Surely.
(By the way, this article has plenty of debatable errors in it in regards of grammar!)
'Trump derides network’s ‘phony’ stories after three quit over piece on supposed investigation
into meeting between associate and Russian investor...'
Wow! A frowning comment on the reaction of a victim of a trio of alleged Journalists -who resigned from
their positions at a prominent news outlet due to a fabricated account that supported a narrative the same
news outlet has been pushing before the election of that victim!
It's almost as seeing a victim walk from court with a smile at justice being done...! and we can't have that
when dealing with a wealthy heterosexual white man, can we?
If we disregard the moral and ethical aspirations that professional Journalism is supposed to adhere to and
ignore the thin-line these three people were walking by bringing the company they worked for into disrepute,
some of us may be left with nothing but the idea that these information-gatherers had nothing on their minds
but dislike for the man in the red tie.
Can this be possible...? Could it be that these 'Reporters' acted in the same manner as a couple of spoilt,
middle-class keyboard warriors?!! When trolling a person on the internet, evidence to make the victim feel
bad isn't needed, it's the implication of guilt by the use of confident wording and as I wrote elsewhere in a
thread, many tend to believe the written word.
'...CNN on Monday accepted the resignations of three journalists involved in a story about a supposed investigation
into a pre-inaugural meeting between an associate of Donald Trump and the head of a Russian investment fund.
On Tuesday, around 6.30am ET, Trump tweeted in response: “Wow, CNN had to retract big story on ‘Russia,’ with
3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!”...'
Ah, it's the glee that President Trump is showing that's the problem here, the chuckling of being correct that a type
of 'Witch-hunt' was being played out to anyone who can read, have access to a television or the internet.
I was wrong, President Trump isn't the victim... these poor souls who write falsehoods are the persecuted ones.
I get it now.
'...The president then retweeted a tweet from a “clickbaiter & #FakeNews debunker”, featuring the CNN logo altered
to read “FNN: Fake News Network”. Later, using “stories” in the plural without citing additional examples, he added:
“Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian
stories. Ratings way down!”...'
Why the scoundrel!! President Trump didn't cite examples...? didn't offer proof to his accusations and used poor
grammar?! I'm sure that if this Hotel-owner had set his pussy-grabbing hand at being a Journalist, a News Editor
glancing at his copy would point out his failings in structuring correct sentences and just like CNN, ignored the fact that
the story was actually false.
'...The president then broadened his attack: “So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC?
What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!”
The CNN story in question was posted on the network’s website on Thursday and was removed, with all links disabled,
on Friday night. CNN immediately apologised to Anthony Scaramucci, the Trump transition team member who was
reported to be involved in the meeting.
Following the retraction Scaramucci, tweeted that CNN “did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted.
Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on.”
Shortly after that the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, tweeted: “Hahahahaha, CNN has standards??
More #fakenews defaming my friend @Scaramucci.”..'
I suppose one would expect a loftier response from the thirty-nine year-old son of the President. I mean, the story
was accidentally researched, written, fact-checked, edited, checked again and then printed and prepared for
broadcast.
How could Trump Jr. not see how there was no intent or malice?!
'...In taking down the story, CNN said it did not meet its editorial standards. The episode is a damaging blow for a
network that Trump has frequently derided as “fake news” . The story never made it on to any of CNN’s television
networks...'
I'd like to know when this article falsely accusing their President of espionage and knowingly endangering the nation
of the United States by colluding with an imaginary enemy (the US isn't at war with Russia!)... when it came into the
area of not meeting 'editorial standards'!
Maybe when the three Journalists explained they had no evidence for their claims...? Maybe Editor...? Just askin'
'...The author, Thomas Frank, was among those who resigned, according to a network executive who requested
anonymity because the person was not authorised to discuss personnel issues. Also losing their jobs were Eric
Lichtblau, an assistant managing editor in CNN’s Washington bureau, and Lex Harris, head of the investigations
unit...'
Are we calling the 'network-executive-who-requested-anonymity' an 'unnamed source' again?!
'...The story was quickly questioned both internally and externally, including by the conservative site Breitbart News.
It was determined that the story was posted without going through the expected checks and balances for one of
such sensitivity, the executive said...'
You mean it was either slipped through unnoticed, was posted because the checks and balances don't exist or the
people assigned to analyse the product of this mature occupation were in the bar by the time it was ready.
'...The failure to follow proper procedures is what led to the resignations, the CNN executive said.
It’s not immediately clear what in the story is factually incorrect, or whether CNN would continue to report on the
issue...'
Well, whatever the section in the report was that held doubts, it was prominent enough to warrant three resignations.
So, I'd guess it'll be easy to find... if one has the Journalists' notes, verified sources and witness-agreed statements
that generated the need to write the article.
Anthony Scaramucci.
'...The retracted story had said the Senate intelligence committee was looking into a 16 January discussion between
Scaramucci and Kirill Dmitriev, whose Russian Direct Investment Fund guides investments by US entities in Russia.
Scaramucci, in the story, said he exchanged pleasantries in a restaurant with Dmitriev.
The report also said that two Democratic senators wanted to know whether Scaramucci had indicated in the meeting
whether sanctions against Russia would be lifted, a decision that could impact the investment fund...'
SOURCE:
Whatever the dubious part of CNN's story must lie within this area of the article, but the illustrious outlet seem unwilling
to indicate which part. Surely, the three men will have shown their superiors their group-gathered evidence and in doing
so, saved their jobs?
Surely.
(By the way, this article has plenty of debatable errors in it in regards of grammar!)
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.