Media Jumps Shark

[audiophile]

They are elated to report that supposedly the CIA found out the Russia helped elect Trump..

Now they saying that Putin had to have approved it...

And the Russian hacking started in 2010...

Huh?

Donald wasn't running in 2010.

As far as I know Wikileaks released the emails, not the Russians.

This is getting downright embarrassing reporting this fake news from supposed CIA "sources". John Podesta fell for the oldest, simplest hacking trick in the book - a reset your password link I don't think you need Russians to come up with that one, even I theoretically could have sent him such a simple email.

[audiophile]

I found this article, just now, to back what I'm saying:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... trump.html

[Deleted User 8570]

They are elated to report that supposedly the CIA found out the Russia helped elect Trump..

Now they saying that Putin had to have approved it...

And the Russian hacking started in 2010...

Huh?

Donald wasn't running in 2010.

As far as I know Wikileaks released the emails, not the Russians.

This is getting downright embarrassing reporting this fake news from supposed CIA "sources". John Podesta fell for the oldest, simplest hacking trick in the book - a reset your password link I don't think you need Russians to come up with that one, even I theoretically could have sent him such a simple email.

If it started in 2010 then this would simply be the latest of in a larger plan. Get stupid Americans to believe crazy stuff and either collude with Trump or feel damn lucky he ran. A gift from the gods for Putin one might say.

[Turkeytop]

So, the greatest intelligence gathering agency in the world, issues an important report. The President Elect, who doesn't even bother to attend intelligence briefings, dismisses it as not credible. Then, the news media should just ignore the report?

[audiophile]

Care to show me an official release from CIA, a of video of CIA official or copy of letter from CIA that the Russians did it?

[Turkeytop]

Care to show me an official release from CIA, a of video of CIA official or copy of letter from CIA that the Russians did it?

I can't show you. I'm only relying on what I've heard and read. So do you believe this is fake news?

[audiophile]

It's possible it is fake that the Russians did it.

We know Wikileaks released it, so that part lends support not being a Russian hack - but simply Mr. Assange.

The media is consumed with this based unofficial "sources", and now they are discrediting them themselves with "Vlad" must have approved and it started in 2010. It's becoming more like a fabrication at every turn.

[Turkeytop]

So, is the media guilty of falling for fake news without properly verifying the story? Or was the media actually complicit in making up this fake news?

[Lester The Nightfly]

So, is the media guilty of falling for fake news without properly verifying the story? Or was the media actually complicit in making up this fake news?

Not complicit, nor would I say apathetic, it's just there's not a lot of downside to simply somnambulating your way through the often tedious, sometimes thankless and occasionally career threatening business of sussing out the truth.

There's a generation of 'older' journalists (and I'm speaking mostly of electronic media, by in large print still does a commendable job but nobody really gives a shit about them anymore) who probably know better but understandably are not willing to put their careers on the line. Not when some younger, more attractive J-school grad who can't be bothered to sit through a hours long mind numbing public hearing when a press release or a Google search will do are nipping at their heels (along management more concerned with pretty faces, ratings and not upsetting the powers that be. See Chris Christie "Revenge Bill").

In recent memory when was the last time a notable journalist suffered any repercussions for phoning it in or outright deception? Brian Williams (ours, not yours) is the only one I can think of. Look at the high profile people of the CNBC financial network who completely missed or downplayed the greatest economic story in 50 years. Bartiromo got a new fat contract and her own show elsewhere. Same with Burnett. The list goes on and on. What would be the point of doing serious work when failing upward has its own lucrative rewards?

All this is to say I really don't think there's some vast conspiracy one way or the other. It's just that the coin of the realm is no longer predicated on the principles we used to think the enterprise of news gathering and dissemination were based on. There's a significant portion of the population that find that not only acceptable but comforting.

[Turkeytop]

Unlike Donald Trump, President Obama does attend his daily intelligence briefings. Every day in his Press Briefing, Press Secretary Josh Ernest has been talking about this issue with his knowledge from the President's intelligence briefings.

If we're to accept that the Russian Hacking didn't really happen, then we must also accept that the President and the White House intelligence staff have been duped by false news.

[Turkeytop]

Obama is now saying the U.S. will retaliate against the Russian hacking.

He's really going to feel silly when he learns that neither the CIA nor the Russians had anything to do with it. That he has been tricked into believing fake news.

Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will'


President Obama says the United States will respond to Russian cyberattacks that the intelligence community has concluded were part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.


In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air Friday on Morning Edition, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."


U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that hackers working for Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, as well as the private email of John Podesta, a top adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


With the question of Russia's ultimate motivation for the hack becoming increasingly divisive, Obama was careful to not endorse a CIA assessment, reported by NPR and other news outlets, that asserts that Russia's goal was to elect Trump.



"There are still a whole range of assessments taking place among the agencies," Obama told NPR, referring to an order he has given the U.S. intelligence community to conduct a full review of the cyberattacks before Inauguration Day. "And so when I receive a final report, you know, we'll be able to, I think, give us a comprehensive and best guess as to those motivations. But that does not in any way, I think, detract from the basic point that everyone during the election perceived accurately — that in fact what the Russian hack had done was create more problems for the Clinton campaign than it had for the Trump campaign."


"There's no doubt that it contributed to an atmosphere in which the only focus for weeks at a time, months at a time were Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation, political gossip surrounding the DNC," Obama said.


In fact, email had been a major focus since before Clinton formally entered the presidential race, owing to revelations first reported by the New York Times that she used a private email server during her tenure leading the State Department. Updates about the FBI's investigation of the server dripped out at intervals throughout the entire campaign.


The State Department also released Clinton emails at semi-regular intervals throughout the campaign, as did the conservative group Judicial Watch, which obtained them through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.


Obama didn't pin the blame for Clinton's loss on the leaked information, saying, "Elections can always turn out differently. You never know which factors are going to make a difference. But I have no doubt that it had some impact, just based on the coverage."


Obama said his goal is for a definitive White House report on the matter to be issued before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20. He was also careful to say that while the Russian hacks benefited Trump, he is not suggesting Trump's campaign helped coordinate the attacks or played any role in them, other than to exploit them for political advantage. "They understood what everybody else understood, which was that this was not good for Hillary Clinton's campaign," the president said.


Obama acknowledged that every "big power" spies and collects intelligence on each other, but, he said, "There's a difference between that and the kind of malicious cyberattacks that steal trade secrets or engage in industrial espionage, something that we've seen the Chinese do. And there is a difference between that and activating intelligence in a way that's designed to influence elections."


Obama discussed cybersecurity with Vladimir Putin during a 90-minute meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit held in China in early September. The president characterized the meeting at the time as "candid, blunt, businesslike."


While Obama is threatening to retaliate against Russia, he has only about five weeks left in the Oval Office. Trump has dismissed — in fact, mocked — intelligence assessments tying the DNC and Podesta hacks to Russia, and he campaigned on improving the U.S. relationship with the country.


In his interview with NPR, Obama appeared mystified by that stance.


"The irony of all this, of course, is that for most of my presidency, there's been a pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party that has consistently criticized me for not being tough enough on Russia," he said. "Some of those folks during the campaign endorsed Donald Trump, despite the fact that a central tenet of his foreign policy was we shouldn't be so tough on Russia. And that kind of inconsistency I think makes it appear, at least, that their particular position on Russia on any given day depends on what's politically expedient."


The president cited a recent Economist-YouGov poll that found Republican voters view Putin much more favorably now than they did before the 2016 presidential election.


"This is somebody, the former head of the KGB, who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia, muzzling the press, throwing political dissidents in jail, countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn; is currently making decisions that's leading to a slaughter in Syria. And a big chunk of the Republican Party, which prided itself during the Reagan era and for decades that followed as being the bulwark against Russian influence, now suddenly is embracing him."


NPR reached out to the Trump transition team for comment but has not received a response.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505775550 ... nd-we-will

[Calvert DeForest]

Not to get off the beaten path, but just out of curiosity, does the KGB still exist?

[audiophile]

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that hackers working for Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, as well as the private email of John Podesta, a top adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Oh, the you mean the hacking skills of a 7th grader?

Send spoof email: hey buddy - reset your gmail password!

The DNC's I.T. department said it was legit, LOL.

What a bunch of buffons...these guys were obviously hired based on affirmative action quotas.

[Matt]

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that hackers working for Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, as well as the private email of John Podesta, a top adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Oh, the you mean the hacking skills of a 7th grader?

Send spoof email: hey buddy - reset your gmail password!

The DNC's I.T. department said it was legit, LOL.

What a bunch of buffons...these guys were obviously hired based on affirmative action quotas.

[audiophile]

I'm glad you enjoyed that Matt

Today's pile of media garbage includes all the reasons Hillary lost. Of course their main reasons were and Comey, Russia and last but not least....white racist voters!

So carrying out that postulate a bit further, black voters voting for Obama were racist too?

Eieieo!

PS there was no mention that it was her own fault.