malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:01 am
The problem is you can't untangle this example from the broader point. The auto-amplification without question/context is the problem.
But there is context. There is a lengthy article attached with lots of facts included. For example, it includes the following:
“It should not be Nancy Pelosi and a small group of people that she selects that get to determine who is going to be our president,” said Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican.
Just two Democrats - Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey - broke with their party and voted against the measure. Both represent districts where Trump won in 2016. Other Democrats from Trump-leaning districts, such as Jared Golden of Maine, voted yes.
Immediately after McCarthy's stupid statement, the article includes facts directly contradicting his premise.
Yup. To me the core problematic media dynamic (that was a HUGE problem in 2016) with bad faith accusations / claims is when: (1) the media includes the baseless accusation in its headlines / chyron, even if it has qualifiers in the main story (because lots of people just see the headlines / chyrons); and/or (2) the media includes the accusation in the text of a story without promptly informing the reader that the accusation is basically scurrilous.
I don't really see either issue with the McCarthy Reuters story here.
We found the average click through rate for a tweet is 1.64% (just over half the rate of email, which averages 2.95%), and that this declines rapidly as your number of followers increases. We also found that clicks tend to increase later in the day, peaking at around 6pm.
But the context is there and available. Is the argument that twitter should be shut down because it lacks the capability to provide full context in each tweet?
I'm not for changing anything at the moment. But I'm informing the idea that the vast majority of people who see the tweet will not click through to be exposed to the context.
We found the average click through rate for a tweet is 1.64% (just over half the rate of email, which averages 2.95%), and that this declines rapidly as your number of followers increases. We also found that clicks tend to increase later in the day, peaking at around 6pm.
But the context is there and available. Is the argument that twitter should be shut down because it lacks the capability to provide full context in each tweet?
It is a reason why media outlets shouldn't tweet out thinly sourced accusations, and why they can't just rely on qualifying details in the underlying articles to cure the issue. But that's not really an issue with this particular tweet / story.
While y'all are debating the finer points of journalism, The President of the United States is mulling over the idea of reading his (not a) transcript for a fireside chat, broadcast on TV.
A defiant President Trump signaled he will not cooperate with the Democratic Party's impeachment proceedings, insisting his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "a good call" and that he might read it aloud to Americans so they can see his point.
“This is over a phone call that is a good call,” Trump, sitting behind the Resolute Desk, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”
This is where we are. He's thinking if he reads the (not a) transcript to the American people, that will seal the deal.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:23 am
This is where we are. He's thinking if he reads the (not a) transcript to the American people, that will seal the deal.
Well, given that the 'at some point' promised release of his tax returns is far off, the 'at some point' reading is probably set for 2030 or so.
So, honest question... What are the chance we will ever read the hidden transcript that on the secured server? I mean , could it be unlocked in the next few months? It sounds like people think that's almost impossible? And then also, how about over the course of time, will we or our grandchildren eventually get to see this transcript (and others?) or are they lost/locked forever ?
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:25 pm
So, honest question... What are the chance we will ever read the hidden transcript that on the secured server? I mean , could it be unlocked in the next few months? It sounds like people think that's almost impossible? And then also, how about over the course of time, will we or our grandchildren eventually get to see this transcript (and others?) or are they lost/locked forever ?
I think there is zero prospect of getting a court to order the release of the transcript from a top secret server before November 2020, and even if we did, execution of that order might be difficult (e.g., getting the executive branch to actually turn it over). Whether the poltiics of the situation could get the administration to turn it over at some point is uncertain, and depends in part on just how bad the transcript is. Like, if there were a transcript on the server that was Trump literally promising Putin that he worked with him to rig the 2016 election and will do it again in 2020, Trump would never turn that over because if he did he might as well just resign. From what I read about what witnesses have testified about the full call transcript it was bad, but not *that* much worse than the summary that was released (one of the main differences was that in the transcript Zelenskyy specifically refers to Burisma, rather than just alluding to "the company discussed"; that's more explicit, but what they were talking about was already clear).
also, I thought I had heard a while ago that by releasing the (not a) transcript, they limited some of their legal arguments for keeping the transcript hidden?
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:49 am
I'm not for changing anything at the moment. But I'm informing the idea that the vast majority of people who see the tweet will not click through to be exposed to the context.
Exactly and the headline is what the GOP aims to control. They've been doing this for a long time. They control the narrative by controlling the topic. The way they do it is to phrase things in a particular way knowing the media will essentially just repeat it no matter what the context is under the covers. Many don't dig in. My criticism is that the headline writers have not seemed
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:50 amIt is a reason why media outlets shouldn't tweet out thinly sourced accusations, and why they can't just rely on qualifying details in the underlying articles to cure the issue. But that's not really an issue with this particular tweet / story.
I can't disagree more. I agree that what he said is an opinion that reflects Republican leadership. However anyone with a clue know it is based on partisanship misleading. He is saying this to get 'this type of neutral reading headline'. I can't see how this isn't an example of the problem. Do you actually believe that this headline conveys what the detailed story says underneath? In fact, the headline almost has nothing to do with the story.
We have one hope. Double Agent Barron. If Natasha Goodenuff can turn him, he'll be our number one guy in the White House. We've already turned his father, the pool boy at Mar-a-Lago.
Last edited by hepcat on Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We found the average click through rate for a tweet is 1.64% (just over half the rate of email, which averages 2.95%), and that this declines rapidly as your number of followers increases. We also found that clicks tend to increase later in the day, peaking at around 6pm.
But the context is there and available. Is the argument that twitter should be shut down because it lacks the capability to provide full context in each tweet?
No. The hope is to put pressure on the media to not act as the dumb, blind amplifier for Republican misinformation. They can frame things without bias but still filter out the propaganda 'topic' that the GOP is pushing.
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:25 pm
So, honest question... What are the chance we will ever read the hidden transcript that on the secured server? I mean , could it be unlocked in the next few months? It sounds like people think that's almost impossible? And then also, how about over the course of time, will we or our grandchildren eventually get to see this transcript (and others?) or are they lost/locked forever ?
Why do we need it? The people who actually listened to the call are willingly testifying. If this was a criminal trial, sure I'd want it to show it to the jury but in this case the jury isn't important because they are hopelessly corrupt. In this situation, the best option is to flip the narrative since it is indeed political and challenge them to prove that what Vindman et. al. is saying was false since the WH holds the keys to the record.
We found the average click through rate for a tweet is 1.64% (just over half the rate of email, which averages 2.95%), and that this declines rapidly as your number of followers increases. We also found that clicks tend to increase later in the day, peaking at around 6pm.
But the context is there and available. Is the argument that twitter should be shut down because it lacks the capability to provide full context in each tweet?
No. The hope is to put pressure on the media to not act as the dumb, blind amplifier for Republican misinformation. They can frame things without bias but still filter out the propaganda 'topic' that the GOP is pushing.
OK, but I think you picked the wrong headline to focus on in this case. The headline clearly states that this is what McCarthy is saying, and doesn't give any credence to it. If something like that doesn't meet your standards, I don't think you're advocating for reasonable standards.
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:49 am
I'm not for changing anything at the moment. But I'm informing the idea that the vast majority of people who see the tweet will not click through to be exposed to the context.
Exactly and the headline is what the GOP aims to control. They've been doing this for a long time. They control the narrative by controlling the topic. The way they do it is to phrase things in a particular way knowing the media will essentially just repeat it no matter what the context is under the covers. Many don't dig in. My criticism is that the headline writers have not seemed
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:50 amIt is a reason why media outlets shouldn't tweet out thinly sourced accusations, and why they can't just rely on qualifying details in the underlying articles to cure the issue. But that's not really an issue with this particular tweet / story.
I can't disagree more. I agree that what he said is an opinion that reflects Republican leadership. However anyone with a clue know it is based on partisanship misleading. He is saying this to get 'this type of neutral reading headline'. I can't see how this isn't an example of the problem. Do you actually believe that this headline conveys what the detailed story says underneath? In fact, the headline almost has nothing to do with the story.
I'm confused. What he said was an opinion of Republican leadership on the impeachment proceeding, which included no underlying statements of objective facts. The headline conveys McCarthy's opinion on the impeachment proceeding.
One question - I've seen plenty of times where the relevant media outlet sends out several tweets about a story which each indicate some aspect of the story ( to broaden the reach of the story). Was that the case here? Given the story I wouldn't be surprised if they send out one tweet which is like "Impeachment moves forward, see here" one tweet "Republican pushback to impeachment, see here" etc., of which this would be the latter.
Anyway, to cut to the core here - what Tweet / headline / story combination would you have done if you were in charge of Reuters?
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:25 pm
So, honest question... What are the chance we will ever read the hidden transcript that on the secured server? I mean , could it be unlocked in the next few months? It sounds like people think that's almost impossible? And then also, how about over the course of time, will we or our grandchildren eventually get to see this transcript (and others?) or are they lost/locked forever ?
I think there is zero prospect of getting a court to order the release of the transcript from a top secret server before November 2020, and even if we did, execution of that order might be difficult (e.g., getting the executive branch to actually turn it over). Whether the poltiics of the situation could get the administration to turn it over at some point is uncertain, and depends in part on just how bad the transcript is. Like, if there were a transcript on the server that was Trump literally promising Putin that he worked with him to rig the 2016 election and will do it again in 2020, Trump would never turn that over because if he did he might as well just resign. From what I read about what witnesses have testified about the full call transcript it was bad, but not *that* much worse than the summary that was released (one of the main differences was that in the transcript Zelenskyy specifically refers to Burisma, rather than just alluding to "the company discussed"; that's more explicit, but what they were talking about was already clear).
It seems like the act of hiding it and then not being able (or willing) to produce it is more damning than what is in it.
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:25 pm
So, honest question... What are the chance we will ever read the hidden transcript that on the secured server? I mean , could it be unlocked in the next few months? It sounds like people think that's almost impossible? And then also, how about over the course of time, will we or our grandchildren eventually get to see this transcript (and others?) or are they lost/locked forever ?
I think there is zero prospect of getting a court to order the release of the transcript from a top secret server before November 2020, and even if we did, execution of that order might be difficult (e.g., getting the executive branch to actually turn it over). Whether the poltiics of the situation could get the administration to turn it over at some point is uncertain, and depends in part on just how bad the transcript is. Like, if there were a transcript on the server that was Trump literally promising Putin that he worked with him to rig the 2016 election and will do it again in 2020, Trump would never turn that over because if he did he might as well just resign. From what I read about what witnesses have testified about the full call transcript it was bad, but not *that* much worse than the summary that was released (one of the main differences was that in the transcript Zelenskyy specifically refers to Burisma, rather than just alluding to "the company discussed"; that's more explicit, but what they were talking about was already clear).
It seems like the act of hiding it and then not being able (or willing) to produce it is more damning than what is in it.
I mean, it depends. It's certainly possible for the transcript to be more damning than the act of covering it up.
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:59 pmThe headline clearly states that this is what McCarthy is saying, and doesn't give any credence to it.
Correct it speaks more to the video than the article to be honest. However, McCarthy's message is the root problem.
If something like that doesn't meet your standards, I don't think you're advocating for reasonable standards.
It isn't about standards. There is an active attack on our democracy happening right now. In that light, the point I am laboring to make is that what McCarthy is saying is *intentionally misleading*. This is part of the GOP's secret sauce. They are piggybacking off Trump's successful use of the media to attack and undermine truth. They do that by understanding how the headline is going to be reported. And as pointed out many people don't read beyond the headline.
I also get why people don't think it is the media's job to police this. However, there is no one else who is positioned to do it in this channel. The way I see it is that the media is essentially an information processing service for the public. One of the major failures of that service was to fail to contextualize the good from the bad in 2016. Some outlets adjusted but many are still just blindly passing the message along and literally amplifying the information poison out to the masses. And they should know better now. One solution could be contextualized headlines. They posted a 2 minute clip of McCarthy speaking. Perhaps, they instead post an edited mini-segment that lays out the bigger picture for the viewers. Anyway, what I am predicting is that continuing to publish headlines in this model - essentially simply passing along the intentionally misleading GOP message is a recipe for disaster next year.
At the same time, overshadowed by the publicity around the impeachment, is the ever-broadening investigation by William Barr, the attorney general, which the White House sees as a game-changer. An investigation which is seeking nothing less than to overturn the conclusion of the US intelligence services and special counsel Robert Mueller that Russia interfered in the last US presidential election.
This has now been designated a criminal investigation with power of subpoena and the possibility of prison sentences for those who have been allegedly involved in criminal actions, although exactly what these criminal actions entail remains unclear.
It may also seem odd that Trump, having repeatedly claimed that the Mueller report was a “complete and total exoneration” of him over Russiagate, is now going to such lengths to try and discredit it.
...
And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”.
The UK, in particular, has been viewed by Trump followers, especially far-right conspiracy theorists, as a deep source of woes for the president.
There are times when I wonder how anyone can believe this "vast Deep State conspiracy" garbage, then I browse out to Drudge Report where daily he has some bullshit story about UFOs or demonic possession mixed in with the normal headlines.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:56 am
This is literally what I was talking about the other day. Yes it reflects what happens but it is direct amplification of his intentional lying.
I’m still not sure what you want. He’s the President. He said that stuff. It’s BS, but it’s still newsworthy. And they put his ridiculous BS in quotes to highlight how suspect it is.
You talk about “information poison” but that turn of phrase makes me feel pretty uneasy. More than a little Orwellian to my ear.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:37 pm
There are times when I wonder how anyone can believe this "vast Deep State conspiracy" garbage, then I browse out to Drudge Report where daily he has some bullshit story about UFOs or demonic possession mixed in with the normal headlines.
it is an extremely convenient way to immediately discount literally any action that may be detrimental to Dear Leader.
It requires literally no critical thinking or evidence to support it, you just have to scream "DEEP STATE!" and all the low-information Trumpers will jump right on board.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:37 pm
There are times when I wonder how anyone can believe this "vast Deep State conspiracy" garbage, then I browse out to Drudge Report where daily he has some bullshit story about UFOs or demonic possession mixed in with the normal headlines.
And the scary part is that Drudge is perhaps one of the most sane conservative journalist types (not that he is a real journalist) out there. He at least links to things that are damaging to the conservative narrative. If you really want your head to explode you should look at infowars or breitbart.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:37 pm
There are times when I wonder how anyone can believe this "vast Deep State conspiracy" garbage, then I browse out to Drudge Report where daily he has some bullshit story about UFOs or demonic possession mixed in with the normal headlines.
And the scary part is that Drudge is perhaps one of the most sane conservative journalist types (not that he is a real journalist) out there. He at least links to things that are damaging to the conservative narrative. If you really want your head to explode you should look at infowars or breitbart.
Remember when Drudge and Rush were the bleeding edge of the crazy conservative media? Now Drudge is a cozy, nostalgic corner of the internet.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:10 amI’m still not sure what you want. He’s the President. He said that stuff. It’s BS, but it’s still newsworthy. And they put his ridiculous BS in quotes to highlight how suspect it is.
It is news agreed. The complete lack of context is the problem. If you don't get why this is a problem I recommend listening to experts on authoritarian regimes (gaslit nation podcast is a great resouce for it) and get educated on it. This is part of the attack on our democracy. This is what folks like Putin do to control the airwaves.
You talk about “information poison” but that turn of phrase makes me feel pretty uneasy. More than a little Orwellian to my ear.
I get it but we are under attack right now and this is what it is. This is straight up information warfare. He is lying brazenly hoping that enough people hear it and begin to believe it. And that is a problem specifically because he is the President. And headline writers need to consider if they want to be part of that mechanism.
Edit: Also it is fair to point out that the media also follows up on these statements and often discounts them. The average news consumer isn't seeing it. Even then they still spent yesterday engaged on the air with coverage about what evidence there could be that Vindman was a #nevertrump-er. He spins them like a top. The entire point is to get them talking about why he isn't trustworthy at his word and the media takes the bait hook, line, and sinker every time.
Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:10 amI’m still not sure what you want. He’s the President. He said that stuff. It’s BS, but it’s still newsworthy. And they put his ridiculous BS in quotes to highlight how suspect it is.
It is news agreed. The complete lack of context is the problem. If you don't get why this is a problem I recommend listening to experts on authoritarian regimes (gaslit nation podcast is a great resouce for it) and get educated on it. This is part of the attack on our democracy. This is what folks like Putin do to control the airwaves.
You talk about “information poison” but that turn of phrase makes me feel pretty uneasy. More than a little Orwellian to my ear.
I get it but we are under attack right now and this is what it is. This is straight up information warfare. He is lying brazenly hoping that enough people hear it and begin to believe it. And that is a problem specifically because he is the President. And headline writers need to consider if they want to be part of that mechanism.
Edit: Also it is fair to point out that the media also follows up on these statements and often discounts them. The average news consumer isn't seeing it. Even then they still spent yesterday engaged on the air with coverage about what evidence there could be that Vindman was a #nevertrump-er. He spins them like a top. The entire point is to get them talking about why he isn't trustworthy at his word and the media takes the bait hook, line, and sinker every time.
I mean, you didn't answer my question before about what you would do if you were Reuters, and in response to Kurth's point getting at what you want, you reiterate the problem. So...again, what would you do if you were Reuters? It *sounds* like what you ultimately want is for Reuters (and presumably other media outlets) to generally avoid covering what Trump is saying. Is that it? Or is there another approach that you want them to take?
Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:10 amI’m still not sure what you want. He’s the President. He said that stuff. It’s BS, but it’s still newsworthy. And they put his ridiculous BS in quotes to highlight how suspect it is.
It is news agreed. The complete lack of context is the problem. If you don't get why this is a problem I recommend listening to experts on authoritarian regimes (gaslit nation podcast is a great resouce for it) and get educated on it. This is part of the attack on our democracy. This is what folks like Putin do to control the airwaves.
You talk about “information poison” but that turn of phrase makes me feel pretty uneasy. More than a little Orwellian to my ear.
I get it but we are under attack right now and this is what it is. This is straight up information warfare. He is lying brazenly hoping that enough people hear it and begin to believe it. And that is a problem specifically because he is the President. And headline writers need to consider if they want to be part of that mechanism.
Edit: Also it is fair to point out that the media also follows up on these statements and often discounts them. The average news consumer isn't seeing it. Even then they still spent yesterday engaged on the air with coverage about what evidence there could be that Vindman was a #nevertrump-er. He spins them like a top. The entire point is to get them talking about why he isn't trustworthy at his word and the media takes the bait hook, line, and sinker every time.
I mean, you didn't answer my question before about what you would do if you were Reuters, and in response to Kurth's point getting at what you want, you reiterate the problem. So...again, what would you do if you were Reuters? It *sounds* like what you ultimately want is for Reuters (and presumably other media outlets) to generally avoid covering what Trump is saying. Is that it? Or is there another approach that you want them to take?
I actually did answer it above - with a couple of hypothetical approaches. I'll add that simply putting the word 'unsupported' in the 2nd example tweet from Reuters would be helpful even. That said, I don't know if it is possible. I'm not in the media business. I don't know how much impact writing contextualized headlines is to them. My impression is they do lazy stuff because it is likely cheaper.
I do believe it is a real problem though. And next year it'll be unmanageable. Barr/WH officials/Trump apparatchiks of all ilks will be dropping lies and hints of investigations from the sky and these guys will just throw it into a headline. Count on it. And the election is looking like it is going to be tight at the moment. Trump is competitive in the battleground states. This type of basic information warfare stuff is going to be critical to his eventual re-election if it occurs.
I just keep coming back to a baseline that it's our job as a populace to have some basic ability to read headlines and make a judgment on when the media is reporting on BS that someone is saying and when the thing being said actually has some merit. If we can't do that, there's not much the media is going to be able to do to fix things.
What I hear you saying is that you want the media to make those judgment calls for us and then embed those judgment calls in their reporting. Maybe I'm getting that wrong, but I have some fundamental problems with that approach.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
On another front I've been reading the transcript of Yovanovitch's testimony. First off, it is a good read so far and I haven't gotten to the Republican questioning yet but they did grandstand about process a little in the beginning. They were setting up the ground for several complaint fronts to be sure. Not worth getting into. However, I'll say that her testimony is pretty depressing. She is basically telling the story of a person who was undermined as ambassador by partners in Ukraine and the US to further there own political and financial ambitions. And when she asked for help she didn't receive it because Pompeo was scared that Trump would undermine him via Tweet (pgs. 60 - 64 of the transcript if interested). Crazy.
The story I see coming together (just a hunch right now) was Guiliani was conducting the so-called drug deal. On paper Guiliani wasn't taking a salary because of his divorce. So he on the side linked up with Fruman and Parnas to run a racket selling LNG. They were desperately seeking meetings using Guiliani's status as Trump's lawyer. They however had an obstacle. Essentially an ambassador implementing our anti-corruption policy. So Guiliani and company linked up with Ukraine's prosecutor general who is himself likely corrupt. He likely wanted her out of the way because she was putting too much pressure on him. So, I think he made a deal with Guiliani. Get rid of her and I'll help you get into LNG. Quid pro quo for Guiliani as a private citizen.
Some of my questions so far:
* Why didn't they get the LNG deal done? My initial impression here so far is that the election in Ukraine happened and the man elected came in on an anti-corruption ticket. He replaced the corrupt prosecutor general. So they now had to strike a new deal to get the LNG contract.
*How did Trump get involved? Not sure yet but likely linked to the election result there. They needed to get the US ambassador removed for some reason still - maybe an oligarch was conditioning it. He might have been pulled in to achieve that but needed a sweetener or they cooked up a story to get him to buy in. That seems plausible. I don't think that Trump et. al. were likely tied up in the LNG scheme but anything is possible.
Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:29 pm
I just keep coming back to a baseline that it's our job as a populace to have some basic ability to read headlines and make a judgment on when the media is reporting on BS that someone is saying and when the thing being said actually has some merit. If we can't do that, there's not much the media is going to be able to do to fix things.
In a perfect world I'd agree. In reality, truth is being overwhelmed by intentional misinformation overload. I'm not saying don't cover what they say because that'd be a problem itself too. What I'm saying is when he says untruthful things they call it out. When he says unsupported things they call it out. And unfortunately I have to specify 'in the headline' because many people form opinions based solely on them. The best practice IMO is to add information there *and* in the body so that people have a chance of figuring out what is what.
What I hear you saying is that you want the media to make those judgment calls for us and then embed those judgment calls in their reporting. Maybe I'm getting that wrong, but I have some fundamental problems with that approach.
I get it but it is unfortunately thinking supported by conditions from the past. A few years ago I would have said the same thing you are but we're in a new era. We've never faced the government intentionally lying to us. At this volume that is. It is constantly at this point.
Edit: One more important consideration. Keep in mind that several experts have talked about why the Mueller report never went anywhere. One of the heavy factors is Barr's misleading summary was dropped early to water down the damage. And some significant portions of the media amplified his misinformation as above.
These guys are very sophisticated at their usage of the media to spread misinformation. That is why it is my opinion that the major media outlets have a responsibility to not be used in this way. We can't expect the public to delve into complicated reports and compare contrast against the AG's opinion. It isn't a sustainable model for information distribution and consumption by the public.
More interesting pieces from the Yovanovitch testimony:
* Fruman and Parnas met with Pete Sessions on May 9th, 2018. Later that day Sessions wrote a letter to Pompeo looking to remove her because she was bad mouthing the administration. That seems to be a big part of the indictment against them.
* There are references to Trump being displeased with her starting in the Summer of 2018. None of that ever made it to her until after she was removed.
* During the first phone call with Zelensky when he was elected, no transcript was produced or relayed to her. She said she would have definitely received one in the Obama administration (no one pressed her to explain this).
* On the July 25th call, Zelensky thanked Trump for telling him about how she was a 'bad ambassador'. The questioning line was that she was mentioned during on the first call - hence no transcript to her.
-Analysis: Whatever drug deal those two were cooking up had multi-dimensions and started well before the election in Ukraine. It would seem that they were working with some oligarch to get the ambassador removed and they were eventually successful. The election being a trigger point for some reason. Interestingly it seems they had to work Trump over for awhile but persistence worked in this case.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:47 pm
Edit: One more important consideration. Keep in mind that several experts have talked about why the Mueller report never went anywhere. One of the heavy factors is Barr's misleading summary was dropped early to water down the damage. And some significant portions of the media amplified his misinformation as above.
These guys are very sophisticated at their usage of the media to spread misinformation. That is why it is my opinion that the major media outlets have a responsibility to not be used in this way. We can't expect the public to delve into complicated reports and compare contrast against the AG's opinion. It isn't a sustainable model for information distribution and consumption by the public.
speaking as someone who's read the entire Mueller report, it isn't complex at all - much of it is easy reading and straight-forward. but it is lengthy, which amounts to much the same thing - and whomever controls the three-sentence summary narrative...
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:47 pm
Edit: One more important consideration. Keep in mind that several experts have talked about why the Mueller report never went anywhere. One of the heavy factors is Barr's misleading summary was dropped early to water down the damage. And some significant portions of the media amplified his misinformation as above.
These guys are very sophisticated at their usage of the media to spread misinformation. That is why it is my opinion that the major media outlets have a responsibility to not be used in this way. We can't expect the public to delve into complicated reports and compare contrast against the AG's opinion. It isn't a sustainable model for information distribution and consumption by the public.
speaking as someone who's read the entire Mueller report, it isn't complex at all - much of it is easy reading and straight-forward. but it is lengthy, which amounts to much the same thing - and whomever controls the three-sentence summary narrative...
hitbyambulance seen speaking as someone else, clearly experienced at deception.
Asserts some of Mueller report is not easy reading or straight-forward.
Establishes Mueller Report amounts to same thing as long things, like snakes.
Essentially they robocalled voters for a 'survey' and when they said they were against impeachment they were offered to be connected to their Congressperson's office to complain. They also sent texts to phones (unclear if this was spam or not) to do the same. Nothing per se illegal or wrong about it but interesting that they are willing to burn the war chest on what amounts to a fool's errand.
