Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[MT15]

If you can believe a Cambridge Analytica spokesman, they bragged that they had individual data on millions of people. They could target their messages almost at an individual level. This is going from memory from what I read at the time.

 

[SaintForLife]

Actually, I guess I missed the boat because I wasn't aware that polling data was part of the collusion line of thinking. Where did that come from? Was it in the Mueller report?

They only focused on the polling data after Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Russia. They are grasping at straws to try to keep the Russia narrative alive.

 

[SaintForLife]

What do you think independently verified means? It doesn't mean the various News outlets asked Russians, or saw documented proof. It means they asked the Pentagon or CIA is this was true.

So, did they lie? What changed?

Independently verified should mean that the New York Times and the Washington Post both confirmed the story with different sources and/or an additional news outlets did their own investigation.

What it really means nowadays is that the same source talked to multiple news outlets. It's not independently confirming the story if you talk to same dishonest source. The news outlets saying they independently confirmed the story gives it additional credibility, but it's just a dishonest trick the media employs quite often.

The CIA has a long history of lies and deceit. Do you really think calling and asking the CIA if something is true qualifies as confirming the story?

 

[SaintForLife]

Sigh, I’m saying he obviously had the same intelligence reports that Biden has now, he tweeted that it was not as likely to be true at the time. When I said reports, I’m talking about intelligence reports, which he obviously had access to, because he said as much at the time.

Problem is that Trump had zero credibility by then, because he had been so deferential to Putin for years that nobody believed him. And instead of setting the record straight (similar to what the current administration just did) he tweeted about it and then just let it drop. He didn’t push back because he basically just didn’t care enough, IMO.

And since you’re still beating the drum of “no collusion”, the government confirmed today that Kilimnick gave the internal Trump polling data and strategy plans directly to Russian intelligence. You remember, the internal Trump campaign documents that Manafort gave to him? But, yeah, the very idea that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence is clearly just crazy.

I had previously posted this about Kilimnik:


The report added Ukrainian legislator Andrey Derkach, described as having “ties” to “Russia’s intelligence services,” and Konstantin Kilimnik, a “Russian influence agent” (whatever that means), used “prominent U.S. persons” and “media conduits” to “launder their narratives” to American audiences. The “narratives” included “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden” (note they didn’t use the word “false”). They added a small caveat at the end: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

...The latest report’s chief conclusions are assessments about Derkach and Kilimnik, information that the whole world knew before this report was released. Hell, even Rudy Giuliani, whose meeting with Derkach is supposedly the big scandal here, admitted there was a “50/50 chance” the guy was a Russian spy. Kilimnik meanwhile has now been characterized as having “ties” to Russian intelligence (Mueller), and as a “Russian intelligence officer” (Senate Intelligence Committee), and is now back to being a mere “influence agent.” If he is Russian intelligence, then John McCain’s International Republican Institute (where Kilimnik worked), as well as embassies in Kiev and Moscow (where Kilimnik regularly gave information, according to the New York Times), have a lot of explaining to do.

Master List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus

The Director of National Intelligence releases a report, and the press rushes to kick the football again.

taibbi.substack.com

So to summarize the back and forth on who Kilimnik is:

1)Kilimnik meanwhile has now been characterized as having “ties” to Russian intelligence (Mueller)
2) as a “Russian intelligence officer” (Senate Intelligence Committee)
3)back to being a mere “influence agent.”(ODNI)
4)and now a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent(Treasury Department)

How did the Treasury Department find evidence that he was a Russian intelligence agent when Mueller and the Senate found no evidence of it? Why didn't Treasury say what the new evidence was to make the determination that he's a Russian agent?

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL and I argued about Kilimnik and the polling data for months. This is him ragging on me about Kilimnik a year ago, before the bipartisan Senate intel report concluded Kilimnik had links to Russian intel, and before it was revealed that he was actually sharing the polling data with the Russians



Sharing proprietary polling data with the Russians was a big deal because the data identified key swing states and districts at which Russians could direct the bulk of their digital psy-ops and influencing campaigns to get the best bang for their buck. Manafort, the Trump campaign manager who met in secret with Kilimnik to give him this data, at the time owed a Russian oligarch tens of millions of dollars and thought that assisting their covert interference in our election would help him “get whole” with the oligarch.

That ☝ is a subplot to a larger and much more complex and nefarious story but it is a clear example of why the “no collusion” line is and has always been a shameless lie.

Why is sharing proprietary polling a big deal? The Russians were intent on affecting our election, but they couldn't do their own polling? Taibbi states that they could have easily done their own polling legally and it wouldn't have had to be done covertly. Was Russia not able to afford the $15,000 to commission a poll?



Some more examples of the Russian Facebook memes that the left acts like they influenced a lot of people to vote for Trump:

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, and in the Senate intelligence committee report. The new thing here is the information that the information given to Kilimnik went straight to Russian intelligence. Most people informed on the matter suspected that to be the case, but now it is confirmed. Basic steps:

Mueller called Kilimnik “associated with Russia intelligence. Didn’t say what he did with info.
Senate report said Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer, but said they couldn’t confirm whether the information was forwarded to Moscow.
Today‘s report connects the dots finally. The Trump campaign chairman was actively colluding with Russian intelligence. Knowingly. Manafort knew exactly what he was doing.

I'll be patiently waiting on the new evidence the Treasury Department produces to justify their claim that now Kilimnik is considered a Russian agent. They offered no evidence for new claim and I don't expect any to be forthcoming.

 

[SaintForLife]

You think it's bad but you just don't really give a shirt about it, or you don't think it's actually that bad or uncommon? Or you think it's 'fake,' or something else?

I'm curious.

It appears to be bullshirt based on the constantly changing claims of who Kilimnik is, what he did, and that no evidence has been provided or even referenced to back up their claims.

 

[bdb13]

Why is sharing proprietary polling a big deal? The Russians were intent on affecting our election, but they couldn't do their own polling? Taibbi states that they could have easily done their own polling legally and it wouldn't have had to be done covertly. Was Russia not able to afford the $15,000 to commission a poll?



Some more examples of the Russian Facebook memes that the left acts like they influenced a lot of people to vote for Trump:

How the Russians used the information provided by the (former) Trump campaign manager seems less important to me than the fact that said Trump (former) campaign manager was providing campaign information to the Russians.. that's a big deal, seemingly objectively, to me.. and for someone who at least appears to believe the Hunter Biden story is a big deal (seems to me like it could be too), I don't understand, other than you playing contrarian/devil's advocate here and with the 'mainstream media's' handling of it, why you've consistently and continually downplayed this.

 

[bdb13]

It appears to be bullshirt based on the constantly changing claims of who Kilimnik is, what he did, and that no evidence has been provided or even referenced to back up their claims.

Gotcha, well that probably answers my other reply to you as well so..

But if it could be proven to you who he was, would that change things?

 

[TaylorB]

Why is sharing proprietary polling a big deal?

A campaign manager for a US presidential candidate was secretly giving private information to a foreign adversary he was heavily indebted to while that adversary was actively interfering in our election. We have emails showing that thought his overtures to a Putin-connected oligarch might convince him to forgive ten figures' worth of debt. While the candidate was publicly lying about billion dollar real estate deals that would require the Kremlin's blessing and encouraging them to hack and release his opponent's emails.

We're all free to decide on our own whether that's a big deal and whether we want that sort of thing happening in our elections going forward.

 

[MT15]

The goalpost moving on this topic is epic.

 

[SaintForLife]

Gotcha, well that probably answers my other reply to you as well so..

But if it could be proven to you who he was, would that change things?

If it was true what would it change? Did you see the Russian Facebook memes I posted earlier about masturbation, veteran, Jesus, Eric Gardner, etc?

Does anyone actually believe that it would influence people to vote for Trump? The small amount of money that Russia spent on Facebook ads could have supposedly swung the election to Trump, but the billions of dollars spent on both campaigns couldn't?

It's so crazy that people cling to these wild things. Then you have the usual people that hype evidence-free claims(this time from the Treasury Dept)while expecting people to believe this Tom Clancy like bullshirt about Russia’s interference in our election.

 

[SaintForLife]

The goalpost moving on this topic is epic.

Hyping evidence-free claims isn't the wisest thing to do. Don't you find it curious that so many of these blockbuster claims end up not being true later in time? Why do you think zero evidence is provided about how they came to these conclusions? Do you believe everything from anonymous intelligence sources even with no evidence?

 

[bdb13]

If it was true what would it change? Did you see the Russian Facebook memes I posted earlier about masturbation, veteran, Jesus, Eric Gardner, etc?

Does anyone actually believe that it would influence people to vote for Trump? The small amount of money that Russia spent on Facebook ads could have supposedly swung the election to Trump, but the billions of dollars spent on both campaigns couldn't?

It's so crazy that people cling to these wild things. Then you have the usual people that hype evidence-free claims(this time from the Treasury Dept)while expecting people to believe this Tom Clancy like bullshirt about Russia’s interference in our election.

I don't really care about that part of it, though, like, I don't think that's the major takeaway, at least, it's not for me. Sure it'd be different in that regard if it appeared that the Russian operation was far more vast and well funded than what we apparently currently know, but I don't see why a vast, well funded operation should be a prerequisite when judging the level of seriousness in which we should view this apparent information sharing between Manafort/Trump campaign and Russians who were working in some form to influence our elections.

 

[brandon]

If it was true what would it change? Did you see the Russian Facebook memes I posted earlier about masturbation, veteran, Jesus, Eric Gardner, etc?

Does anyone actually believe that it would influence people to vote for Trump? The small amount of money that Russia spent on Facebook ads could have supposedly swung the election to Trump, but the billions of dollars spent on both campaigns couldn't?

It's so crazy that people cling to these wild things. Then you have the usual people that hype evidence-free claims(this time from the Treasury Dept)while expecting people to believe this Tom Clancy like bullshirt about Russia’s interference in our election.

Are you suggesting that you posted every meme that Russia distributed in their misinformation campaign?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

...Does anyone actually believe that it would influence people to vote for Trump?

I mean, there are actual congressmen repeating Russian disinformation on the floor of the Capitol, so yeah, I know they are Americans that believe Russian disinformation, or any disinformation for that matter.

In this case the information is correct, but that image though.

 

[SaintForLife]

I mean, there are actual congressmen repeating Russian disinformation on the floor of the Capitol, so yeah, I know they are Americans that believe Russian disinformation, or any disinformation for that matter.

In this case the information is correct, but that image though.

Like how the news about Hunter Biden was supposedly Russian disinformation? Almost everyone here fell for that one.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't really care about that part of it, though, like, I don't think that's the major takeaway, at least, it's not for me. Sure it'd be different in that regard if it appeared that the Russian operation was far more vast and well funded than what we apparently currently know, but I don't see why a vast, well funded operation should be a prerequisite when judging the level of seriousness in which we should view this apparent information sharing between Manafort/Trump campaign and Russians who were working in some form to influence our elections.

Well considering there has been zero evidence produced that showed Kilimnik gave the polling to Russian intelligence we are dealing in a hypothetical situation.

Do you think we should believe evidence-free claims from the intelligence agencies or even the Treasury Department?