cbs news sounds pretty credible

Same for CNN. Top tier news sources

so, the NYT/WAPO "independently verified" story from "4 anonymous sources" turned out to be fake news.
good job everyone, pat yourselves on the back

gonna have to be more specific

If Major Garrett's story is true, the NYT/WaPo/other sources got it partly wrong. The NYT never reported that Trump issued a direct order in written form.

Also not sure why you favor CBS over NYT/WaPo/other sources. It could just be different people giving their side of the same story, substantially it's not that different. Calling it fake news is derp status.



Can we take a second to acknowledge how fucking strange this president is? His staff nods and hopes the guy forgets about something he said?

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 27 2018 09:02pm

I'm skeptical of any bombshell story to start with, and I'm more trusting when a partisan news source goes out on a limb to contradict a story in a way that is against their self-interest of bias.
The nuance of 'written order' versus verbal order vs nodding head vs calling a priest troublesome is pretty irrelevant since NYT/WaPo made the very specific claim that McGahn threatened to resign in response to Trump floating the idea of firing Mueller and staked his career in opposition to that move. And CBS is directly refuting that. They say that's a fabrication. And it would hardly be unprecedented for NYT/WaPo, or CBS for that matter, to push a piece of anti-Trump fake news that breaks down under scrutiny.

Its news, and its fake. They said something happened, that thing didn't happen. At least, if CBS is to be believed, but as I've said before, I'll believe someone acting against their own interests

If the nuance is irrelevant on that point why did you bold it in your post above?

It's in CBS's interest to dispute part of a huge story put out by journalistic heavyweights like the NYT and WaPo. Real journalists like to compete with each other, but of course that doesn't make sense if you think they are some unified leftist cabal.

For legit journalism, I tend to look past the outlets. A couple sources are disputing a few other ones, perhaps not out of some good-hearted desire to give Americans the truth. Either way, if Major Garrett's sources are right, the NYT/WaPo sources got it wrong on why Don McGhan threatened to resign. I don't view that as fake news, I view it as partly inaccurate journalism.

You're a smart guy, so it's sort of strange that you've bought into this "fake news" retardation. You think Maggie Haberman wants to put out fake information to hurt the president?

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 27 2018 09:27pm

you don't understand man, the weatherman be reportin fake news every fking day! they even lied about the weather on the day of the emperor's inaugration

This post was edited by duffman316 on Jan 27 2018 09:26pm

bet you're extra sceptical since you found out they are all part of a "secret society" anyway, as reported by super reliable sources...

We've seen repeated fake news stories exactly like this over the past year. At this point its just beating a dead horse for this to turn out to be fake. Come on now, you can't pretend that these exact same sort of fake news duds haven't been landing left and right. You can quibble over the definition of fake news and whether it should apply to erroneous stories, but this would just be shoveled onto a big pile of other stories. Like when Trump did his fakies, he counted to 10 without even mentioning half the stories I can name offhand from the past year. You care about the labels and perceptions, I don't. You can call it fake news or call it inaccurate journalism, what it is, is exactly the same no matter what you call it. To me, its news, and its fake, so its fake news, and I call a spade a spade.

But surely, there's got to have a better motive and explanation of events than CBS deciding its in its interests to contradict NYT and WaPo just for the sake of competition. Are we going to see CBS start saying that no bombing actually took place in Afghanistan, in order to capture that contrarian clickbait audience? Are they going to post headlines tomorrow that Trump nuked North Korea, just to get the early scoop on something that didn't actually happen? Come now, that's not rational.