The CNN Troll Thread

[CID1990]

And now there are 18. Was kind of half watching the TV while getting ready to shower yesterday and heard a former US ambassador refer to "18 intelligence agencies" when talking about the consensus that the Russians made efforts to influence the election. Backed the TV up to listen to it again to make sure I heard right. Yep. He said "18." The guy is Thomas Pickering, indicated as "Fmr. U.S. Ambassador to Russia."

Wonder which one the LA Times missed.

Pickering misspoke.

He's a well known guy, and DoS's version of an "ROTC" is named after him. The latest batch of Pickering Fellows got caught in the hiring freeze but they've been grandfathered in.

Like I said before (and am now repeating in the style of YOU)-

There aren't really 18 or 17 intel "agencies". Hard intel comes from about six main sources that are tasked with collection. The rest are just synthesizers that use the products of the few.

Saying we have 18 intelligence agencies is like lumping police departments and militias in with DoD and saying we have 20 branches of the military.

[Col Hogan]

[Col Hogan]

[CID1990]

Every now and then you'll hear about Congress looking into fiddling around with funding for NPR. Then it is always followed by the predictable pearl clutching by people mostly on the left.

If NPR doesn't want to go through this every 4-8 years they might want to get away from that left side and try to match up a little better with Reuters.

[kalm]

RT leans right to hyper-partisan?

Mediate is fairly libertarian.

[93henfan]

What is the "Q" logo just above C-Span, top dead center?

[Col Hogan]

What is the "Q" logo just above C-Span, top dead center?

John Q Public

https://www.jqpublicblog.com/

It's mostly Air Force related news...I was surprised to see it there

[93henfan]

What is the "Q" logo just above C-Span, top dead center?

John Q Public

https://www.jqpublicblog.com/

It's mostly Air Force related news...I was surprised to see it there

Thanks! I can see why you'd know: there seems to be a bit of a USAF bias on that site.

[Col Hogan]

[Ivytalk]

Who came up with this chart? I have some questions about it, particularly who qualifies as "neutral."

[Col Hogan]

Who came up with this chart? I have some questions about it, particularly who qualifies as "neutral."

I'm checking...I can't do a quick search on Twitter, which is where I found it...I believe I know the author, a counter-intelligence blogger I follow...I got it on May 11th, that much I can see...

I'll PM you more...

[JohnStOnge]

You know, the fact that CNN retracted and obtained the resignations of the people involved actually increases the organization's credibility. Or at least it SHOULD for any objective observer. They have quality control procedures in place and when they were violated they took corrective action.

They don't intentionally put out false information and they try to avoid doing it. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a President with the same scruples in that regard?

[93henfan]

They don't intentionally put out false information and they try to avoid doing it.

[Jjoey52]

Hilarious and true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

You know, the fact that CNN retracted and obtained the resignations of the people involved actually increases the organization's credibility. Or at least it SHOULD for any objective observer. They have quality control procedures in place and when they were violated they took corrective action.

They don't intentionally put out false information and they try to avoid doing it. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a President with the same scruples in that regard?

They were threatened with a $100 million lawsuit, and that is why they retracted the story, not journalistic integrity.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

Some nice headline trolling on the website at the moment:

"What Chelsea Clinton had to say about Ivanka's role at G20" - Honestly, who fucking cares what she had to say? Did they get Amy Carter's take too? It would be equally relevant.

"GOP health care bill in trouble (again)" - Perhaps a more honest headline would be, "No apparent way to fix the shit sandwich that is Obamacare (still)".

[kalm]

Some nice headline trolling on the website at the moment:

"What Chelsea Clinton had to say about Ivanka's role at G20" - Honestly, who fucking cares what she had to say? Did they get Amy Carter's take too? It would be equally relevant.

"GOP health care bill in trouble (again)" - Perhaps a more honest headline would be, "No apparent way to fix the shit sandwich that is Obamacare (still)".

There's several apparent ways. Repeal it, Medicare Part E...

[CID1990]

Some nice headline trolling on the website at the moment:

"What Chelsea Clinton had to say about Ivanka's role at G20" - Honestly, who **** cares what she had to say? Did they get Amy Carter's take too? It would be equally relevant.

"GOP health care bill in trouble (again)" - Perhaps a more honest headline would be, "No apparent way to fix the **** sandwich that is Obamacare (still)".

Hey people are entitled to their opinions

And Chelsea certainly is entitled to hers

But if anyone thinks for one second she wouldn't have had a policy position in the White House if her mother had won....

Well I have a used email server to sell you

[93henfan]

Btw, that Amy Carter grew into a real stunner:

[89Hen]

Btw, that Amy Carter grew into a real stunner:

Ron Weasley?

[93henfan]

No, Amy Carter. You know, Billy Carter's niece.

[JohnStOnge]

They were threatened with a $100 million lawsuit, and that is why they retracted the story, not journalistic integrity.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I just Googled it. I think you should check the sources who say that. You can use the site I use at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=Daily+mail.

Also, here's a quote from Scaramucci on the issue:

"It needed to be retracted, otherwise I think I needed to get more aggressive, but I didn't go to sue them or anything like that,"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -overblown

Another example of the fact that, unfortunately, most of the "fake news" going around right now is coming from what I historically considered to be my "side."

CNN retracted the story and asked for the resignations of the people involved because the story did not meet their editorial standards. It wasn't because Scramucci threatened to sue them. That story is "fake news."

[JohnStOnge]

Every now and then you'll hear about Congress looking into fiddling around with funding for NPR. Then it is always followed by the predictable pearl clutching by people mostly on the left.

If NPR doesn't want to go through this every 4-8 years they might want to get away from that left side and try to match up a little better with Reuters.

You have to admit they are pretty close to neutral. It's actually gotten to the point where I listen to NPR most of the time when I'm riding around. I mean, what are you going to listen to when you listen to the radio? Rush Limbaugh, who I have at times defended in the past, has had PunditFact (a Politifact thing) rate a whopping 18% of his statements as True or Mostly True vs. 55% rated False or Mostly False.

When it comes to radio, what the heck are you going to listen to?

[BDKJMU]

Every now and then you'll hear about Congress looking into fiddling around with funding for NPR. Then it is always followed by the predictable pearl clutching by people mostly on the left.

If NPR doesn't want to go through this every 4-8 years they might want to get away from that left side and try to match up a little better with Reuters.

You have to admit they are pretty close to neutral. It's actually gotten to the point where I listen to NPR most of the time when I'm riding around. I mean, what are you going to listen to when you listen to the radio? Rush Limbaugh, who I have at times defended in the past, has had PunditFact (a Politifact thing) rate a whopping 18% of his statements as True or Mostly True vs. 55% rated False or Mostly False.

When it comes to radio, what the heck are you going to listen to?

I'm sure as heck not going to listen to truth/false ratings from Punditfact, run by left leaning Politifact..

[kalm]

You have to admit they are pretty close to neutral. It's actually gotten to the point where I listen to NPR most of the time when I'm riding around. I mean, what are you going to listen to when you listen to the radio? Rush Limbaugh, who I have at times defended in the past, has had PunditFact (a Politifact thing) rate a whopping 18% of his statements as True or Mostly True vs. 55% rated False or Mostly False.

When it comes to radio, what the heck are you going to listen to?

I'm sure as heck not going to listen to truth/false ratings from Punditfact, run by left leaning Politifact..

Dude, the Koran is left leaning to you...