Pragidealist

It’s definitely interesting.

https://www.axios.com/buzzfeed-reporter-trump-tower-moscow-story-cohen-9b0937d2-89b8-4f53-b51a-3dcc03d23ab5.html

I disagree that putting an inaccurate or changing story in the same category as propaganda is less damaging than it being inaccurate. 1) No one knows the accuracy until the story is over. That takes years. All we knew was it was disputed - not inaccurate. You were a bit premature. 2) I agree to having standards. I don’t agree on the standards you’ve set arbitrarily or your evaluation that even your own standards were violated. In short you’re wrong on multiple fronts with no case to the contrary. Of course this forum is not a democracy but I can show all how wrong you are, express an idea and maybe get others to think about what they label as fake news.

I think that’s part of Pelosi strategy- to expose his main strength as a myth loud and publicly

Not really - you’re wrong and I’ll say so. You’ve also made any argument to the contrary. You’ll have to deal with multiple threads and posts on why you’re wrong. We’ll both survive I’m sure

You assumed it was inaccurate because someone official that you happened to trust refuted it. That did not make it inaccurate. you effectively put a challenged story into the same category of Briebert

Again - not about what I agree with. It’s about how one judges journalism. There is no need to lock an ever changing story. There is only a need sensor propaganda.

Ha ! Fair enough

Doesn’t locking a thread imply fake news?

We also need to be very careful how we determine “fake news”. Fake news is rampant propaganda and NOT an inaccurate or changing story by a reporter solid journalistic practices

Ha! Good discussion! Why was this so hard? (incidentally- I’ve said before I prefer it Trump is voted out and then charged to impeached. More consequences for both gop and Trump that way. I suspect that is Mueller’s position as well. I think a lot of consecutive law enforcement agree with Kavanaugh about indicting and charging a sitting President). I think Buzz did fine if they are accurate but they do need be accurate. I agree that inaccuracies do hurt the free press. I don’t think we should assume inaccuracies or that Mueller’s motives align with broadly sharing information with the public. If he thinks a report will damage his investigation or case then he’ll try to squash it. And alerting ppl of what information they may have could do both. So I can see multiple reasons Mueller would look to discredit a report and only one is to ensure the public has accurate information. I also would assume that would not be a motivating favor for him. So.. what’s left?

Btw - this guy gets it.

Jamal all the years we’ve debated, you never seem to accept that sometimes (less often than I used to)- I simply get passionate about an idea or premise that is only tangentially related to a current event. You often misconstue my passion for that premise for an emotional attachment to the event. I am much more prone to get emotional attachments to abstract idealistic constructs than to even get excited about a single current event. Im often most frustrated (‘and troll the most) when people refuse or unable to engage on the construct. I get exceptionally frustrated with you because you’re one of the few on here who I respect in terms of ability to keep up in a good debate. Whether you choose to disagree, agree, or supplement that idea - it’s all good and would frustrate me a great deal less than your tendency to focus on incorrect inferences of motivation.

Bullshit man - I’ve used nothing but reason and logic aside from a few friendly jabs to troll you a bit. You don’t have an argument against my actual premise and you know it. You cab only argue against what you incorrectly infer are my motives. You have no defense for my actual argument.

All of it. Read them again