The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: NYT Corrects Story Claiming 17 Intel Agencies ‘Agree’ On Russia
Source:
DailyCaller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/n ... ed-to-help-trump-win-election/
Published: Jun 30, 2017
Author: Holmes Lybrand
Post Date: 2017-06-30 09:24:02 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 10041
Comments: 39
The original article, published June 25, covered certain reactions that President Donald Trump gave in response to Russian cyber attacks and interactions with the 2016 presidential election. TheNYT’s correction notes that: “The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.” Former candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim in late May that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed “that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.” Former FBI Director James Comey refuted this false claim in a congressional hearing in May, stating that the assessment was only from the NSA, FBI and the CIA. The Daily Caller News Foundation published a fact-check June 1 that rated Clinton’s claim as “False.” The New York Times issued a correction Thursday on an article that incorrectly claimed all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that “Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get [Trump] elected.”
Poster Comment:
A story that has ticked me off ever since I first heard it.
Most of the 17 agencies have absolutely no expertise or skill set to determine if Russia or anyone else is meddling in domestic U.S. politics.
Does anyone really think the Coast Guard's intel agency is expert on Russia hacking Hitlery's illegal email server? Do the Marine intel agency have any expertise to bring to bear? Of course not.
The all-17-agencies story was dumb as a rock from the very beginning. And yet we saw very little pushback on the credibility of this story from outlets like Breitbart or FNC.
It's a stupid stupid story and it always was. Agency/Office Parent Agency Federal Department Date est. Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996 National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961 National Security Agency none Defense 1952 Military Intelligence Corps United States Army Defense 1863 Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882 Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948 Marine Corps Intelligence United States Marine Corps Defense 1939 Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915 Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007 Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947 Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945 Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004 Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement Administration Justice 2006 Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005 Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
in response to Russian cyber attacks
First it was "Russia hacked the election". Now it's "Russian cyber attacks". Neither of which is true.
Some Russian (maybe) in Russia (maybe) with the knowledge of the Russian government (maybe) broke into the DNC server and Podesta's g-mail account and published the contents through WikiLeaks.
That's it.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4)
First it was "Russia hacked the election". Now it's "Russian cyber attacks". Neither of which is true.
They keep changing the story because, as various elements get discredited, they can still maintain "new information" on the underlying scandal.
It's like debating evolutionists or Marxists. They have an unfalsifiable core belief system and they are dishonest enough to stick with it, no matter what the facts say.
They only retrench when they find 80% of the public is against them. And then they find a way to revive it using new "facts" or by relabeling it to make it sound like some new info about an old topic.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
And when the whole truth finally comes out the MSM will yawn and say it's old news.
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
And when the whole truth finally comes out the MSM will yawn and say it's old news.
It's a time-tested script after all.
And it only has to work on a little over 50% of the public, most of whom are paying very little attention to begin with. And if 40% of the public is reliably hardcore partisan, you have less than 10% of the public to bamboozle with your #FakeNews productions.
What's surprising is just how easy it is to do this and get away with it over and over. Once you abandon the notion that the first and foremost duty of the press is to report the truth in an unbiased way, you realize how profitable it can be to create and distribute #FakeNews. And it can be very popular with some advertisers in the Slimes and WaPo. They like the flavor of #FakeNews being peddled; they want to underwrite it.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#8) (Edited)
It's funny. You watch some old movies -- even the latest season of House of Cards -- and the editor (usually with a chewed-up stogie in his mouth) is saying, "I want this story double-checked and triple-checked before THIS newspaper runs with it!"
How trite. How passé. How unimaginative.
Find an unnamed source or make one up, print the story, and bask in the increased circulation. What's the downside ... a retraction 2 months later on page 34?
We actually have a constitutional amendment protecting this misuse of free speech? If the U.S. Supreme Court allows the regulation and licensing of gun owners under the second amendment, maybe it's time we do the same with the MSM under the first.
#10. To: misterwhite (#9) (Edited)
It's funny. You watch some old movies -- even the latest season of House of Cards -- and the editor (usually with a chewed-up stogie in his mouth) is saying, "I want this story double-checked and triple-checked before THIS newspaper runs with it!"
More accurately, the editor would say, "I forbid any effort to double-check or triple-check this story before THIS newspaper runs with it".
Print it all in bold headlines on page 1. Print any retractions on page 73A in fine print in the want ads weeks later after the story has registered with the low-info voters (most of whom will never even notice the retraction). At most, fire a minion or two and put up with a little scolding from the house ombudsman.
I'm really not exaggerating here.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)
At most, fire a minion or two ...
Noooooo. Not the minions. They're so cute!
Replies to Comment # 11.
There are no replies to Comment # 11.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]