Fake News: AP clarifies 17 U.S. intel agencies did not assess Russia 'interference'

[FakeNews]

Following a similar statement released by the New York Times, the Associated Press on Friday clarified that three U.S. intelligence agencies – and not 17, as the news agency repeatedly reported – assessed that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

The AP clarified: In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.

While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, the actual report was the product of only three. Indeed, in his testimony in May, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made clear the report’s conclusions were the product of those three agencies and not seventeen.

The false anti-Trump talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton stated the following at the third presidential debate: “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.”

In an editor’s note issued on Thursday, the New York Times wrote that the Russia interference conclusion was drawn by “four intelligence agencies” – including Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence since it issued the January 6 report.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-did-not-assess-alleged-russia-interference/

 

[phrodeau]

Is this supposed to be smoke or a mirror?

The most important part of the story is "…three U.S. intelligence agencies… assessed that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." So bite it.

 

[FakeNews]

Is this supposed to be smoke or a mirror?

The most important part of the story is "…three U.S. intelligence agencies… assessed that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." So bite it.

Why did the Associated Press & The New York Times report fake news?

 

[phrodeau]

Why did the Associated Press & The New York Times report fake news?

Who gives a fuck?

Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Don't you understand what that means?

 

[FakeNews]

Who gives a fuck?

Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Don't you understand what that means?

I'm very well aware of the problems associated with Russia attempting to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Like you, that disgusts me.

I'm also very well aware of the problems associated with the Associated Press, CNN & The New York Times lying to the American people. That also disgusts me. It's rather unfortunate it doesn't disgust you.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm very well aware of the problems associated with Russia attempting to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Like you, that disgusts me.

I'm also very well aware of the problems associated with the Associated Press, CNN & The New York Times lying to the American people. That also disgusts me. It's rather unfortunate it doesn't disgust you.

I am much more disgusted by the highest authorities in our country, our political leaders, lying to the American people.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm very well aware of the problems associated with Russia attempting to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Like you, that disgusts me.

I'm also very well aware of the problems associated with the Associated Press, CNN & The New York Times lying to the American people. That also disgusts me. It's rather unfortunate it doesn't disgust you.

A "lie" is an assertion of fact that one KNOWS NOT TO BE TRUE. What is the evidence that the Associated Press deliberately lied in its reporting rather than being merely sloppy or negligent?

Negligent attention to detail resulting in sloppy reporting certainly DISAPPOINTS me, but doesn't quite rise to the level of "disgust." Similarly, negligent attention to detail on the part of media consumers resulting in ignorance and misconceptions also disappoints me.

Both the AP and any reasonable intelligent person reading the original "17 intelligence agencies said..." reporting should have immediately suspected the unlikelihood of intelligence community agencies like the National Geospatial Intelligence agency, Department of Energy, DEA, or the military intelligence agencies, most particularly those of the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard being directly involved in investigating Russian email hacking.

Media outlets bear responsibility for publishing stupid shit. But that hardly absolves people from blindly believing stupid shit that's obviously stupid.

 

[Que]

What is most interesting about the story of intelligence agency "concurrence" on "the Russia thing" is that the actual agencies that did any head nodding are all headed by political animals that have shown they will put english on the ball for political reasons. Clapper, Brennan, and Comey. Comey, least so, but he will play the angles for an outcome his personal sense of morality justifies. All three would have maintained positions of immense power and prestige in a Clinton continuation of the Obama team.

 

[FakeNews]

A "lie" is an assertion of fact that one KNOWS NOT TO BE TRUE. What is the evidence that the Associated Press deliberately lied in its reporting rather than being merely sloppy or negligent?

Negligent attention to detail resulting in sloppy reporting certainly DISAPPOINTS me, but doesn't quite rise to the level of "disgust." Similarly, negligent attention to detail on the part of media consumers resulting in ignorance and misconceptions also disappoints me.

Both the AP and any reasonable intelligent person reading the original "17 intelligence agencies said..." reporting should have immediately suspected the unlikelihood of intelligence community agencies like the National Geospatial Intelligence agency, Department of Energy, DEA, or the military intelligence agencies, most particularly those of the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard being directly involved in investigating Russian email hacking.

Media outlets bear responsibility for publishing stupid shit. But that hardly absolves people from blindly believing stupid shit that's obviously stupid.

Following your argument....why didn't the AP and The New York Times "suspect the unlikelihood of intelligence...?"

Was it intentional? To discredit Trump?

What other stories should be questioned?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Following your argument....why didn't the AP and The New York Times "suspect the unlikelihood of intelligence...?"

Was it intentional? To discredit Trump?

What other stories should be questioned?

I don't know why they didn't. They certainly should have.

Was it intentional to discredit Trump? Almost certainly not. It would have been a pathetically stupid move, irrefutably proven to be so by the fact that the story fell apart in a matter of weeks and had to be retracted. Now who is discredited?

ALL stories should be questioned. Because if you're a journalist, and you don't, a competitor is quite likely to follow up and GAIN CREDIBILITY at the expense of YOU LOSING YOURS!!

THAT is the built in "checks and balances" on the mainstream media -- an industry that clearly leans to the left, certainly in its editorial pages, commentary and analysis and in the personal opinions of its practitioners. But IF they choose to play "fast and loose" with hard facts, don't think they don't damn well know that they ultimately do so at their peril.

 

[water505]

Who gives a fuck?

Yeah, who cares if the media habitually and intentionally lies to us?

 

[water505]

I am much more disgusted by the highest authorities in our country, our political leaders, lying to the American people.

That's because you believe fake news.

 

[Que]

I don't know why they didn't. They certainly should have.

Was it intentional to discredit Trump? Almost certainly not. It would have been a pathetically stupid move, irrefutably proven to be so by the fact that the story fell apart in a matter of weeks and had to be retracted. Now who is discredited?

ALL stories should be questioned. Because if you're a journalist, and you don't, a competitor is quite likely to follow up and GAIN CREDIBILITY at the expense of YOU LOSING YOURS!!

THAT is the built in "checks and balances" on the mainstream media -- an industry that clearly leans to the left, certainly in its editorial pages, commentary and analysis and in the personal opinions of its practitioners. But IF they choose to play "fast and loose" with hard facts, don't think they don't damn well know that they ultimately do so at their peril.

I think that at one time what you say was true because journalism was a distinguished profession with an internal compass. That internal compass is gone. What passes for journalism school right now is nothing more than political indoctrination camp.

Articles and segments are no longer crafted to inform the reader "Who, what, when, why, where?" but to convey a narritive to shape public opinion. They are not looking for newsworthy stories, rather, they are looking for stories that are amenable to massaging into any number of set-piece, ongoing narratives, that they see as helping to positvely shape society, rather tban reporting on society.

Part of that is preaching to whichever choir sings their praises. Used to be all newsrooms leaned hard left but worked a bit to not let that blatantly creep into their news coverage. Post Fox News, where right-leaning opinions and selective, but straight reporting tbat appealed to a specific denographic, the mask came off from the others. If Fox could unashamedly display their bias, so could those on the left. They took it to the next level. Not just eliminating stories that did not support their worldview, and hyping ones that did, but blatantly editorializing in straight news. Their editors failed at basic journalistic standards. Now, making things up seems ok, as long as you can lead a source into spouting what you want to report.

Look at the reporting that James O'Keefe is doing. His people are leading witnesses to say things on camera which more or less reveals bias but on the other hand you're leading them to say those things so that you can report those things that you already decided you were going to report. if he didn't have the actual camera on them and it's simply reported each of those conversations as "sources" he wouldn't likely to be believed that people inside CNN are saying those things but since she showing it on video you can see how he led the horse to water. That's what we're not seeing on all these stories that turn out to be inaccurate- we aren't seeing how the source came to say what it is they said and or what was the motivation of that particular source to give them the information that they did in the way that they parsed it.

Deep Throat turned out to have actual access to the things he was revealing, and his axe to grind turned out to not affect the veracity of what he was revealing, and actual facts could be independantly corroborated. That doesn't mean that annonymous sources of unknown motivations should be considered anything close to best journalistic practices.

An honest reporter should be asking about and independently verifying a source's motivation for giving the information.

A reputable journalism school should be teaching students to recoil from advocacy journalism, but my understanding is they are teaching that bastardization of a noble profession as worthy rather than repugnant.

 

[Rightguide]

Following your argument....why didn't the AP and The New York Times "suspect the unlikelihood of intelligence...?"

Was it intentional? To discredit Trump?

What other stories should be questioned?

Clapper corrupted the term "Intelligence Community Assessment" in cobbling together that report. The logos of the real participating agencies can be found on the report itself, only three appear, CIA, NSA and FBI not 17. I posted a link to the report back in February that showed the difference between a real community assessment and the Russian hacking report claiming to be an "intelligence community assessment," but cannot search back far enough to find it. I have attached a link to an article explaining Clapper's machinations to corrupt the normal nomenclature of the "Intelligence Community Assessment.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...sian-interference-in-election-was-rigged.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who gives a fuck?

Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Don't you understand what that means?

Did they?

It seems that our press and deep state went so much further than the Russians could get...



Someone quote me so FroDOH! can see that he has been called out on his *fake news*.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm very well aware of the problems associated with Russia attempting to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Like you, that disgusts me.

I'm also very well aware of the problems associated with the Associated Press, CNN & The New York Times lying to the American people. That also disgusts me. It's rather unfortunate it doesn't disgust you.

I am much more disgusted by the highest authorities in our country, our political leaders, lying to the American people.

The ends justifies the means Comrade...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't know why they didn't. They certainly should have.

Was it intentional to discredit Trump? Almost certainly not. It would have been a pathetically stupid move, irrefutably proven to be so by the fact that the story fell apart in a matter of weeks and had to be retracted. Now who is discredited?

ALL stories should be questioned. Because if you're a journalist, and you don't, a competitor is quite likely to follow up and GAIN CREDIBILITY at the expense of YOU LOSING YOURS!!

THAT is the built in "checks and balances" on the mainstream media -- an industry that clearly leans to the left, certainly in its editorial pages, commentary and analysis and in the personal opinions of its practitioners. But IF they choose to play "fast and loose" with hard facts, don't think they don't damn well know that they ultimately do so at their peril.

I'm sorry, but if you heard Bernstein today, then you might be in my camp; they are willing to lie.

Remember, when he and Woodward discovered that their "leaked" Grand Jury testimony was a fraud and tried to spike one of their stories, the editors told them to stfu and ran it anyway...

Right now, the Progressive Left feels that dirty tricks are justified.

You know, Trump is "insane."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well said Que...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I think that at one time what you say was true because journalism was a distinguished profession with an internal compass. That internal compass is gone. What passes for journalism school right now is nothing more than political indoctrination camp.

Articles and segments are no longer crafted to inform the reader "Who, what, when, why, where?" but to convey a narritive to shape public opinion. They are not looking for newsworthy stories, rather, they are looking for stories that are amenable to massaging into any number of set-piece, ongoing narratives, that they see as helping to positvely shape society, rather tban reporting on society.

Part of that is preaching to whichever choir sings their praises. Used to be all newsrooms leaned hard left but worked a bit to not let that blatantly creep into their news coverage. Post Fox News, where right-leaning opinions and selective, but straight reporting tbat appealed to a specific denographic, the mask came off from the others. If Fox could unashamedly display their bias, so could those on the left. They took it to the next level. Not just eliminating stories that did not support their worldview, and hyping ones that did, but blatantly editorializing in straight news. Their editors failed at basic journalistic standards. Now, making things up seems ok, as long as you can lead a source into spouting what you want to report.

Look at the reporting that James O'Keefe is doing. His people are leading witnesses to say things on camera which more or less reveals bias but on the other hand you're leading them to say those things so that you can report those things that you already decided you were going to report. if he didn't have the actual camera on them and it's simply reported each of those conversations as "sources" he wouldn't likely to be believed that people inside CNN are saying those things but since she showing it on video you can see how he led the horse to water. That's what we're not seeing on all these stories that turn out to be inaccurate- we aren't seeing how the source came to say what it is they said and or what was the motivation of that particular source to give them the information that they did in the way that they parsed it.

Deep Throat turned out to have actual access to the things he was revealing, and his axe to grind turned out to not affect the veracity of what he was revealing, and actual facts could be independantly corroborated. That doesn't mean that annonymous sources of unknown motivations should be considered anything close to best journalistic practices.

An honest reporter should be asking about and independently verifying a source's motivation for giving the information.

A reputable journalism school should be teaching students to recoil from advocacy journalism, but my understanding is they are teaching that bastardization of a noble profession as worthy rather than repugnant.

Oh, there is no question that "preaching to the choir" is a staple of much "journalism" today. It is why I refuse to watch either MSNBC or Hannity. And while most of the MSM will still lean left, that same media will not fail to correct facts in error committed by their brethren if it flatters their brand or credibility.

For that matter there was no law mandating that the AP clarify the story at the heart of the OP. So given all that nasty bias permeating the industry, why do you think they bothered? Presumably they could have remained mum and no one would have been the wiser.

Any ideas on that?

 

[Que]

Oh, there is no question that "preaching to the choir" is a staple of much "journalism" today. It is why I refuse to watch either MSNBC or Hannity. And while most of the MSM will still lean left, that same media will not fail to correct facts in error committed by their brethren if it flatters their brand or credibility.

For that matter there was no law mandating that the AP clarify the story at the heart of the OP. So given all that nasty bias permeating the industry, why do you think they bothered? Presumably they could have remained mum and no one would have been the wiser.

Any ideas on that?

The AP is in the business of selling, theoretically, pure, unvarnished news to outlets that use it to form a quotable base for segments and articles. If UPI still existed (I assume they don't?) They would have already been taken to the woodshed.

In their case, they have to pretend to be (maybe are?) concerned about accuracy, and I assume they have sone dinosaurs working there that do care. they cannot afford to get tarred with the fake news brush because they have to pretend to be Centrist and they certainly don't need to have another modern wire service pop up. It wouldn't take that much to start such a thing in the internet age. Pay a few bucks per item from stringer and you're set and you only pay them if they have something for you.

The New York Times was directly called out by Comey and pretty much had to decide whether they wanted to back down or stand pat. They stood pat and equivocated on that story complaining that that's what their sources told them. So it forced them to go back and be accurate about which sources were actual sources and which sources were conflated to be part of those sources but weren't.