Oh you guys are gonna have a field day. Cohen was wiretapped!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I must be missing the logic here. If NBC is fake news, then why did they retract/correct the article immediately? It takes some kind of special mental gymnastics to explain that.....

Why would they run such nonsense in the first place?

C'mon Mis, you're a smart guy. Are you telling me that the most likely explanation (one of their reporters got a scoop and didn't verify/vet it properly - something that happens in news) doesn't come to mind?

Would you suggest an alternative that satisfies Occam's Razor better?

I would say you are probably right on this.

The question is, is that any better?

I guess when people hear the term "fake news" perhaps they mean intentionally made up by the place reporting it.

I dont think that is what happened here. I think that either the reporter exaggerated what he was told, or his source flat out lied to him or her and they didnt verify the info before they ran with it.

This has happened many times before as well.

Neither of those options are good.

Better in as much as at the very least the didn't double down or waste any time obfuscating the misreporting, but instead immediately owned up and changed it (much to their detriment and to the 'Fake News' crowds delight), and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I must be missing the logic here. If NBC is fake news, then why did they retract/correct the article immediately? It takes some kind of special mental gymnastics to explain that.....

Easy answer.

They sucked enough people in and they'll always believe it no matter what.

It's an old old trick.

Several hours is plenty of time to sink it in.

Just look at the 50 interpretations right here on ATS already.

😃

If the purpose was for propaganda then why correct the story? That explanation doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Because the seed is already planted. You can’t unsay something or unsee something. The low information voters that watch the news are only going to see the original story.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I must be missing the logic here. If NBC is fake news, then why did they retract/correct the article immediately? It takes some kind of special mental gymnastics to explain that.....

Why would they run such nonsense in the first place?

C'mon Mis, you're a smart guy. Are you telling me that the most likely explanation (one of their reporters got a scoop and didn't verify/vet it properly - something that happens in news) doesn't come to mind?

Would you suggest an alternative that satisfies Occam's Razor better?

I would say you are probably right on this.

The question is, is that any better?

I guess when people hear the term "fake news" perhaps they mean intentionally made up by the place reporting it.

I dont think that is what happened here. I think that either the reporter exaggerated what he was told, or his source flat out lied to him or her and they didnt verify the info before they ran with it.

This has happened many times before as well.

Neither of those options are good.

Better in as much as at the very least the didn't double down or waste any time obfuscating the misreporting, but instead immediately owned up and changed it (much to their detriment and to the 'Fake News' crowds delight), and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

So what, we are to congratulate NBC for having a fake report because after a couple hours and after officials told them that wasnt the case?

Yeah, sorry, I dont find that commendable at all.

a reply to: Wayfarer

and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

I disagree.

People make mistakes. We are all human.

What separates us from one another is how we handle those mistakes and unless the reporter has a history of making these sorts of mistakes, to call for their firing is just too much, in my opinion.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Wayfarer

Because the seed is already planted. You can’t unsay something or unsee something. The low information voters that watch the news are only going to see the original story.

This too doesn't make sense. You are relying on the supposition that NBC news that all/most of their watchers would be viewing the article/story before the retraction (which is just absurd). Those who follow NBC are now just as exposed to the retraction as they were to the original story, ergo many of its readers will take the retraction at face value (just as they did the initial story).

I'm disappointed in NBC, but I also don't believe that the wiretap actually existed now that I've read the retraction. For me, partially due in part to the speed of their correction, I still have faith that they are reporting what they believe to be the facts (even when as in this case it goes against the perceived interest of those you don't agree with).

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I must be missing the logic here. If NBC is fake news, then why did they retract/correct the article immediately? It takes some kind of special mental gymnastics to explain that.....

Why would they run such nonsense in the first place?

C'mon Mis, you're a smart guy. Are you telling me that the most likely explanation (one of their reporters got a scoop and didn't verify/vet it properly - something that happens in news) doesn't come to mind?

Would you suggest an alternative that satisfies Occam's Razor better?

I would say you are probably right on this.

The question is, is that any better?

I guess when people hear the term "fake news" perhaps they mean intentionally made up by the place reporting it.

I dont think that is what happened here. I think that either the reporter exaggerated what he was told, or his source flat out lied to him or her and they didnt verify the info before they ran with it.

This has happened many times before as well.

Neither of those options are good.

Better in as much as at the very least the didn't double down or waste any time obfuscating the misreporting, but instead immediately owned up and changed it (much to their detriment and to the 'Fake News' crowds delight), and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

So what, we are to congratulate NBC for having a fake report because after a couple hours and after officials told them that wasnt the case?

Yeah, sorry, I dont find that commendable at all.

Not commendable (I don't think I mentioned that), nor should they be congratulated (far from it). Rather I'm clarifying what I believe to be a clear example of the opposite of 'fake news'.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Wayfarer

and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

I disagree.

People make mistakes. We are all human.

What separates us from one another is how we handle those mistakes and unless the reporter has a history of making these sorts of mistakes, to call for their firing is just too much, in my opinion.

Perhaps, but at the same time given the severity of the misreporting, and the extremely bad timing of it, its an error of the highest degree in a time when errors such as this are being used by ideologues to propagate a 'fake news' narrative.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I must be missing the logic here. If NBC is fake news, then why did they retract/correct the article immediately? It takes some kind of special mental gymnastics to explain that.....

Why would they run such nonsense in the first place?

C'mon Mis, you're a smart guy. Are you telling me that the most likely explanation (one of their reporters got a scoop and didn't verify/vet it properly - something that happens in news) doesn't come to mind?

Would you suggest an alternative that satisfies Occam's Razor better?

I would say you are probably right on this.

The question is, is that any better?

I guess when people hear the term "fake news" perhaps they mean intentionally made up by the place reporting it.

I dont think that is what happened here. I think that either the reporter exaggerated what he was told, or his source flat out lied to him or her and they didnt verify the info before they ran with it.

This has happened many times before as well.

Neither of those options are good.

Better in as much as at the very least the didn't double down or waste any time obfuscating the misreporting, but instead immediately owned up and changed it (much to their detriment and to the 'Fake News' crowds delight), and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

So what, we are to congratulate NBC for having a fake report because after a couple hours and after officials told them that wasnt the case?

Yeah, sorry, I dont find that commendable at all.

Not commendable (I don't think I mentioned that), nor should they be congratulated (far from it). Rather I'm clarifying what I believe to be a clear example of the opposite of 'fake news'.

Again I guess its all in how you define "fake news"

The story was fake. I do not believe NBC is "fake news" on the whole though, nor do I believe fox or most of the other msm outlets are.

I think they report what they think are facts or what sources are telling them, and then put their spin on ity.

I am with introvert that I dont want to see this guy get fired.

He should apologize and seek to do better, but he could have legitimatly been told this by sources.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Additionally considering they insinuated verification by citing 2 separate sources.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Perhaps, but at the same time given the severity of the misreporting, and the extremely bad timing of it, its an error of the highest degree in a time when errors such as this are being used by ideologues to propagate a 'fake news' narrative.

Doesn't it seem that firing the reporter would be playing-in to the hands of those that spit the fake news propaganda narrative?

What happens when the next reporter makes a simple mistake? Do we fire them as well? How about the one after that?

It seems that we would eventually run out of people willing to report the news, because society placates to the politically-correct nature of the fake news zealots.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Wayfarer

and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.

I disagree.

People make mistakes. We are all human.

What separates us from one another is how we handle those mistakes and unless the reporter has a history of making these sorts of mistakes, to call for their firing is just too much, in my opinion.

That’s good to hear. So if Trump made a mistake with the Stormy Daniel’s issue, I’m sure you’ll extend to him the same tolerant empathy.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Your first mistake is believing them in the first place.

©🤦

a reply to: introvert

yeah mistakes ..

oldest excuse in the world for failure

😳

Maybe instead of fake news this is just a misunderstanding of the difference between wiretapping and collection of pen register data. Seems like a lot of non-technical people might not understand the difference.

-dex

a reply to: Grambler

I think they report what will gather the most clicks and tweets as soon as they can.

They have zero issue with post fact reporting. Surely not a one sided issue.

Unstable people do not become billionaire presidents

Have you ever read history in your life???? Only unstable people become Billionaire Presidents.

originally posted by: CharlesT
www.nbcnews.com...

CORRECTION: Earlier today, NBC News reported that there was a wiretap on the phones of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, citing two separate sources with knowledge of the legal proceedings involving Cohen.

But three senior U.S. officials now dispute that, saying that the monitoring of Cohen’s phones was limited to a log of calls, known as a pen register, not a wiretap where investigators can actually listen to calls.

So NBC’s original story was based on citations from two sources with knowledge of the legal proceedings involving Cohen.

Which, at first blush, sounds like those “two sources” might be “insiders”, well placed to access such information, maybe?

But now, NBC has retracted their original story based on “three senior U.S. officials” who are disputing that claim.

“Disputing”, not Refuting the claim.

There is a difference isn’t there? I mean you can “dispute” something without necessarily being able to prove your claim, right?

But to “refute” something, you generally have to offer some alternative in support/proof of your claim.

And who are these three “senior U.S. officials”?

The original story cites sources who specifically have knowledge of the legal proceedings; yet the connection these “officials” have to any knowledge of the case is completely unstated...if it exists at all!

I wonder if maybe NBC might have “let the cat out of the bag” prematurely? Perhaps they were “advised” to “walk back” their scoop in the interest of future access to an ongoing investigation?

I also wonder if FISA might be involved, in some way, in this very odd development?

originally posted by: introvert
That may not be entirely correct. They may have evidence, such as Trump's own statements, like him wanting to fire Comey for a specific reason, that raise red flags. If you read the questions, if they are from the SC, it seems clear that they are trying to figure out Trump's intent.

As we have learned from the Clinton email fiasco, intent is very important and can mean the difference between a slap on the wrist and prosecution.

There is no such thing as intent being important as to whether classified info was improperly handled. That is a LIE from Comey to protect Hillary - there is nothing in the statute about intent. Which is exactly why she is 100% guilty.

Meaning there was no Russian collusion so how would firing Comey obstruct anything - even if his only intention was to try and stop the investigation.

That is a very odd way of thinking. You do not have to have a crime, in this case collusion, in order to intend to obstruct the investigation of that potential crime.

First off, I have seen many lawyers say the president cannot obstruct justice by firing a subordinate for any reason - It is in his power to do that regardless of the reason.

Second - I am not a lawyer, but if you are correct than there is something very wrong with the legal system. People should not be punished for non crimes.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: introvert
That may not be entirely correct. They may have evidence, such as Trump's own statements, like him wanting to fire Comey for a specific reason, that raise red flags. If you read the questions, if they are from the SC, it seems clear that they are trying to figure out Trump's intent.

As we have learned from the Clinton email fiasco, intent is very important and can mean the difference between a slap on the wrist and prosecution.

There is no such thing as intent being important as to whether classified info was improperly handled. That is a LIE from Comey to protect Hillary - there is nothing in the statute about intent. Which is exactly why she is 100% guilty.

Meaning there was no Russian collusion so how would firing Comey obstruct anything - even if his only intention was to try and stop the investigation.

That is a very odd way of thinking. You do not have to have a crime, in this case collusion, in order to intend to obstruct the investigation of that potential crime.

First off, I have seen many lawyers say the president cannot obstruct justice by firing a subordinate for any reason - It is in his power to do that regardless of the reason.

Second - I am not a lawyer, but if you are correct than there is something very wrong with the legal system. People should not be punished for non crimes.

There most certainly is such thing as intent in the case of leaks.


In fact Judge Nspalitano just discussed it on fox and friends this morning.