Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report

[JimL]

If a newspaper can't verify a story is true, they should not publish it. It's that simple. At the very least, say in the article that it is unverified speculation.

CNN is supposed to be a trusted top news organization, not a tabloid. And yet, over the past few years, they have published fake story after fake story.

The story was already public when the Lawyer for Parnas stated it. CNN said "according to Parnas is lawyer" and that Parnas lawyer was the origin of the accussation is public knowledge. Not fake news on the media's part.

[JimL]

Obviously the dispute is over whether or not CNN made a good faith effort to verify the facts before running the story. That they apparently didn't bother to check the claims against Nune's publicly available travel itinerary does not speak well for their diligence. Or worse, maybe they did check, but they suppressed the information because it didn't fit their narrative?

Whatever the case, CNN doesn't look so good here, so it's par for the course.

For one thing, CNN wasn't the first one to go with the story, so you should verify the facts before spouting off about CNN. Second, the facts that they reported was that Parnas Atty made this accussation against Nunes. And he did! What do you think, Parnas and or his Atty just picked Nunes name out of a hat? Nunes couldn't even admit to not communicating with Parnas when asked on his favorite FOX NEWS media site. Oh I can't remember, I talk to so many people, how can you expect me to remember talking to this guy about a conspiracy scheme to shake down a foriegn government. Besides that, Nunes was already caught once before of sitting on the investigative committee while scheming with the subject (White House) of the investigation, so this shouldn't be at all surprising to you.

[Sparko]

Not true Sparko. That is the real Trump era 'fake news' - that anything but fox or brietbart is fake news. What you call the MSM (which includes CNN) is still the best source for accurate, thorough reporting of the news. That is not to say any specific news source is perfect or does not make mistakes, or that some of those sources are not consistently more or less biased than others.

But it is to say that sources like fox or breitbart are some of the worst and most biased sources out there, and that they prey on the paranoia of their primary audience.

There is a thread or two somewhere on this board that Meh_Gerbil started that lists many of the verified fake news CNN stories over the years.

[Mountain Man]

...the facts that they reported was that Parnas Atty made this accussation against Nunes.

Yes, but they could have done their homework and pointed out that the accusation doesn't jive with Nunes' travel itinerary.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, but they could have done their homework and pointed out that the accusation doesn't jive with Nunes' travel itinerary.

That would have required actual journalistic integrity.

[Sparko]

That would have required actual journalistic integrity.

Journalism today is posting on a blog or memes on facebook.

[oxmixmudd]

There is a thread or two somewhere on this board that Meh_Gerbil started that lists many of the verified fake news CNN stories over the years.

You can point me to it if you'd like.

What I find when I scan various news sites, or especially when I look closely at the current barrage of the claims of 'fake news', is very similar to what I found when I started checking out AIG 'evidences' against the actual facts and scientific evidence. That the cries of 'fake news' are at best exaggerated if not completely false - especially when they emerge carried by a paranoid pro-trump "the media is out to get him" wrapper.

[oxmixmudd]

Journalism today is posting on a blog or memes on facebook.

no - journalism today still lives in places like the WP or NYT. real journalists writing real articles with substance, though noting that they often take longer than 1 minute to read, which makes them incomprehensible to many - unfortunately.

[Sparko]

You can point me to it if you'd like.

What I find when I scan various news sites, or especially when I look closely at the current barrage of the claims of 'fake news', is very similar to what I found when I started checking out AIG 'evidences' against the actual facts and scientific evidence. That the cries of 'fake news' are at best exaggerated if not completely false - especially when they emerge carried by a paranoid pro-trump "the media is out to get him" wrapper.

You can look it up if you want. I am not bothering debating with you at this time. I just provided it as an FYI. I doubt it would convince you anyway.

[JimL]

Journalism today is posting on a blog or memes on facebook.

"Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're hearing is not what's happening. Just stick with us, don't believe that crap........." Nope, not from George Orwells 1984, that's Trump 2018.

[Cow Poke]

Journalism today is posting on a blog or memes on facebook.

And so much "we were there first" or "we were there exclusively".... much more interest in being first than being correct.

[Mountain Man]

And so much "we were there first" or "we were there exclusively".... much more interest in being first than being correct.

And the standard is no longer "Is this true?" (if that was ever the standard) but "Can we be sued for publishing this?"

[Mountain Man]

...journalism today still lives in places like the WP or NYT. real journalists writing real articles with substance...

And I bet you think Walter Cronkite is the gold standard for TV anchors despite the fact that he was a partisan hack who enjoyed his status as "The Most Trusted Man In America" simply because there was no alternative media to call him out.

[JimL]

And I bet you think Walter Cronkite is the gold standard for TV anchors despite the fact that he was a partisan hack who enjoyed his status as "The Most Trusted Man In America" simply because there was no alternative media to call him out.

Right, and Nixon was innocent too and would never have been impeached if only we had real, honest journalism at the time, like say a Sean Hannity, or a Rush Linbaugh.

[Mountain Man]

Right, and Nixon was innocent too and would never have been impeached if only we had real, honest journalism at the time, like say a Sean Hannity, or a Rush Linbaugh.

Nixon was on his way to impeachment because Congress had hard evidence that a crime had actually been committed and not because of "real, honest journalism". In fact, I read an interesting article this past year about how Woodward and Bernstein (which I still think sound like a pair of Broadway composers) weren't entirely honest about who Deepthroat was and what he really knew, were flat out wrong about some critical details, and completely missed that Nixon himself had perpetrated a coverup, which was the most damning piece of evidence to come out of the impeachment inquiry.

But you go ahead and keep believing the myth that a pair of journalists and their anonymous source took down an American president.