GOP Senators spied on by Biden Administration

[beej]

And here I thought, according to Alfonsi and others at CBS, they were telling the reader that Weiss is willing to bury a story using excuses, effectively handing a "kill switch" to the current Administration when faced with an inconvenient article that may not paint them in the best light? If that's true, then she's not "one of us". She's just another cog in the machine.

That's my takeaway. Funny how we can both come to different conclusions?

I don't imagine this is going to make people trust her *more*.

Out of curiosity, do you think the story is an important story?

Well I think that the target audience was supposed to receive it the way you did.

[neurosis]

Well I think that the target audience was supposed to receive it the way you did.

I mean, who wouldn't receive it that way? What would you call a "journalist" that conveniently buries a story for no good reason? It's like some people have never read the phrase "we reached out for an official comment from the administration, but they didn't respond". Do you think she would have pulled this story if she were still independent?

Now, she did say that the story may be released at a later date. I'll be curious to hear reports (if we get any) on whether they changed the story or not.

I'll ask this again because I edited the other post too late.

Do you think that the story they didn't run is an important story?

[CNCAppsJames]

I'm not sure why they would need input from the Trump administration to run a story about the conditions at CECOT?

Speaking of Weiss, wasn't her media company named "The Free Press"?  How ironic is that? 

For starters, are the conditions "actual" conditions today, or were they conditions created by the previous administration but are now being attributed to the current administration? If we're not suffering from that scorching case of TDS, that is a completely reasonable and logical question.

Oh... the media... it runs on cocaine, caffeine and irony.

[CNCAppsJames]

I mean, who wouldn't receive it that way? What would you call a "journalist" that conveniently buries a story for no good reason? It's like some people have never read the phrase "we reached out for an official comment from the administration, but they didn't respond". Do you think she would have pulled this story if she were still independent?

Now, she did say that the story may be released at a later date. I'll be curious to hear reports (if we get any) on whether they changed the story or not.

I'll ask this again because I edited the other post too late.

Do you think that the story they didn't run is an important story?

Is the story actually a story or is it a fabrication? That should be the 1st question. Not running a story is actually refreshing. I mean let's be real for a second... how many nothing burgers are we served up every single day? 

 

[mowens]

For starters, are the conditions "actual" conditions today, or were they conditions created by the previous administration but are now being attributed to the current administration? If we're not suffering from that scorching case of TDS, that is a completely reasonable and logical question.

Did the last administration send prisoners from the U.S. to CECOT? It opened it 2023.

[mowens]

how many nothing burgers are we served up every single day? 

Do you mean on this forum or in general?

[CNCAppsJames]

And here I thought, according to Alfonsi and others at CBS, they were telling the reader that Weiss is willing to bury a story using excuses, effectively handing a "kill switch" to the current Administration when faced with an inconvenient article that may not paint them in the best light? If that's true, then she's not "one of us". She's just another cog in the machine.

That's my takeaway. Funny how we can both come to different conclusions?

I don't imagine this is going to make people trust her *more*.

Out of curiosity, do you think the story is an important story?

We all come to different conclusions based on a number of factors, points of view, and biases. That's just a fact.

The fact she pulled a story should not change anyone's opinion, it should cause us to sit back and see how it plays out. Is it steam or is it smoke? If it's steam, it will go away, if it's smoke there's something smoldering, will the smolder burn itself out or will will it turn into a raging fire?

I don't know if it's an "important story" or not. Not EVERY story is important.

 

[CNCAppsJames]

Do you mean on this forum or in general?

Just in general. From CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Time, Fortune, AP, Reuters, OANN, all of them are guilty of serving them up. 

Since the advent of digital media, there is truly no cost whatsoever for serving them up. BITD, when you had a team of linotype operators printing an actual daily/weekly newspaper, you had an entire chain of people that relied on the news agency to get it right. Retractions were very costly.

[neurosis]

I mean let's be real for a second...

I'm starting to get the feeling that's not going to be possible. 

[neurosis]

The fact she pulled a story should not change anyone's opinion, it should cause us to sit back and see how it plays out. Is it steam or is it smoke? If it's steam, it will go away, if it's smoke there's something smoldering, will the smolder burn itself out or will will it turn into a raging fire?

If she releases the story at some point in the future, unchanged, then I think it fizzles out.

I was a fan of Weiss after she left the NY Times. This isn't something I would expect out of her. If they don't release the story, or significantly change it, I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll lose any trust in her reporting (or decisions on what gets reported) that I had previously.

On the big scale of all things wrong, this is really really far down the list. I do think that it could be noteable, and I think the story is an important one.

[gcode]

enroll yourself in an introduction to journalism class. Perhaps there you can learn how stories are sourced, researched, vetted and reported. If you pay close attention, you might even learn how it is possible to use an anonymous source, and the justified reasons for doing so.

this advice could just as easily be applied to the "credentialed journalists" who have been producing the leftist
propaganda they feed us under the guise of fair and impartial reporting.

[beej]

1)What would you call a "journalist" that conveniently buries a story for no good reason? It's like some people have never read the phrase "we reached out for an official comment from the administration, but they didn't respond".

2)Do you think she would have pulled this story if she were still independent?



3)Do you think that the story they didn't run is an important story?

i edited the quote to make it easier to respond to

1) I would call that an everyday occurrence. we just came from a four year period where news rooms were refusing to run stories that showed the mental decline of President Biden, even when it was clear to anyone watching. And then, after the debate some seemed shocked by the fact that he had fallen so far. that shock was fake.

2) Maybe she is just trying to make her journalist work harder. I see it all the time, that an article says (subject) has responded at the time of this reporting. then after they do respond it ends up destroying the entire narrative of the story. ie, Trump removed the bust of MLk JR on his first day in the oval office. If they had just waited to run that story until the white house responded it would not have been a story at all. maybe that was fear. they needed it to be a story.

3)It is a very important story. And at this point, I don't see how this is constitutional or morally acceptable everyone of these people should be tried in the public court of law for laws that they have broken. I see to some degree the problem, most of them, (75% by the cato institute study vs 25% who are here under asylum rules) are here illegally and venezuela won't take them back, so what do you do with them if the only provable law that they have broken is entering the country illegally.

Maybe the thing to do is fix venezuela so that we have options to get them out of this prison and back to their own country. But you seem to be against that too.

[neurosis]

1) I would call that an everyday occurrence. we just came from a four year period where news rooms were refusing to run stories that showed the mental decline of President Biden, even when it was clear to anyone watching. And then, after the debate some seemed shocked by the fact that he had fallen so far. that shock was fake.

So then you think we should be doing more of that and not less? This feels like a what about?

2) Maybe she is just trying to make her journalist work harder. I see it all the time, that an article says (subject) has responded at the time of this reporting. then after they do respond it ends up destroying the entire narrative of the story.

Conditions and human rights abuses at CECOT is something that's already been reported on. I'm not sure what narrative could be ruined? I assume that the important part of this story, is that they're now able to interview people who were sent there by this administration, and talk to them about what conditions they had to endure. The narrative is already there.

3)It is a very important story. And at this point, I don't see how this is constitutional or morally acceptable everyone of these people should be tried in the public court of law for laws that they have broken. I see to some degree the problem, most of them, (75% by the cato institute study vs 25% who are here under asylum rules) are here illegally and venezuela won't take them back, so what do you do with them if the only provable law that they have broken is entering the country illegally.

100% agree. 

[beej]

So then you think we should be doing more of that and not less? This feels like a what about?

it's different because the story has been shelved until the white house has a chance to respond. I'd be in favor of that for democrat as well as republican administrations. I want to hear the story but I only want to hear the whole story. What's wrong with taking a little time and getting the story done thoroughly before running it?

that is different from media outlets, not only refusing to run a story about Biden's decline, but actively disputing it as right wing conspiracy and deep fake videos. that's my opinion anyway.

[neurosis]

it's different because the story has been shelved until the white house has a chance to respond.

The report was that, and I'll quote, "The White House, along with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, refused to provide a statement or participate in the interview for the 60 Minutes segment on CECOT"

It doesn't sound as if they plan on responding.