>I didn't go to school for journalism, but I don't see why providing some more context is a bad thing
>They never published the allegations as true. In fact they explicitly mentioned that they were unsubstantiated.

too bad buzzfeed 2.0 got thrown under the bus by NYT and everyone else for running with it in any fashion. no one would touch it because it was a a joke of a 'dossier' but they couldn't help themselves.
they're to blame for their horrible reporting and decision-making over the past 18 months (as you're too blame with being wrong about everything over the same time frame )

i think this is a proper sentiment to have towards said sheep herd:



kek

This post was edited by excellence on Mar 13 2017 01:02pm

NYT is fake news, why would you believe anything they say?

CNN's report was truthful and accurate. You haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.

CNN reported on the dossier as containing credible allegations of pissgate, when they were contained in an annex as specific examples of disinformation and nonsense. They lent their media clout to advancing pissgate rumours just like they're still advancing russian conspiracy theories, hiding behind the excuse of 'unverified' when its the explicit responsibility of journalists to vet their sources and not publish unverified rumour and innuendo and gossip. Their report was false and irresponsible, malicious and shameful.

when even #fakenews tells buzzfeed 2.0 to knock it off its a bad look

>Truthfully reporting on a discredited document
oh im sorry how did you phrase it "truthfully talked in reference to it for several news cycles but didnt report on it"

Your characterization of their reporting is false. They specifically said they wouldn't comment on the allegations contained in the Buzzfeed report.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

You can take issue with mentioning the Buzzfeed report at all, but that's good reporting. Why don't you quote the false information in the article for us?

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 13 2017 01:51pm

Because like I said, they were reporting on the dossier as containing those allegations as credible. It doesn't matter whether they cover themselves by refusing to name specifics and encouraging their readers to wink wink nudge nudge go check out buzzfeed.
They gave it the formality of their journalism and advanced it from a fringe to the mainstream national stage:



Except thats not at all why the dossier was included. It wasn't extraordinary, and wasn't included to tell him what "allegations were circulating among intelligence agencies", it was mundane fanfics and outlandish conspiracy theories presented purely as examples of the discredited disinformation that were swirling on the internet in places like 4chan, to draw a contrast with the real intelligence.

They conflated the dossier about #goldenshowers with the credible sections of the intelligence report, and presented it as being credible, which it wasn't, and they would know that, if they had vetted their source instead of printing it only knowing "the dossier was in the report, and the report is real", without the context of why it was in there or what it meant.

They specifically presented the bogus fanfic story as being "sensitive classified intelligence", and they were completely wrong.

What fucked up farm did you grow up on?

This post was edited by tonerbond on Mar 13 2017 02:11pm