An examination of Media Bias...

[WVex-pat in GA]

We've heard it all before...Media Bias, FAKE NEWS and as atlkvb likes to say "Lies with the truth". I heard about the story in the following links late last night and at the time there was only one media outlet going with this story. So, as we all should, I waited to see if anyone else would pick it up.

This morning I found multiple media outlets with the same story, two of them stood out to me in the way the story was presented; one from Fox News and the other from CNN. They are about the same topic, but definitely have a different spin in the way the story is presented.

Now it's time for you to decide:

CNN

FOX

 

[bamaEER]

We've heard it all before...Media Bias, FAKE NEWS and as atlkvb likes to say "Lies with the truth". I heard about the story in the following links late last night and at the time there was only one media outlet going with this story. So, as we all should, I waited to see if anyone else would pick it up.

This morning I found multiple media outlets with the same story, two of them stood out to me in the way the story was presented; one from Fox News and the other from CNN. They are about the same topic, but definitely have a different spin in the way the story is presented.

Now it's time for you to decide:

CNN

FOX

Nice post. Yup exposed.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

We've heard it all before...Media Bias, FAKE NEWS and as atlkvb likes to say "Lies with the truth". I heard about the story in the following links late last night and at the time there was only one media outlet going with this story. So, as we all should, I waited to see if anyone else would pick it up.

This morning I found multiple media outlets with the same story, two of them stood out to me in the way the story was presented; one from Fox News and the other from CNN. They are about the same topic, but definitely have a different spin in the way the story is presented.

Now it's time for you to decide:

CNN

FOX

Can you link the original that you had seen?

 

[bamaEER]

Can you link the original that you had seen?

I bet it was CNN.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I bet it was CNN.

It was the CNN story, last night about 9 or 10 pm.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I bet it was CNN.

Perhaps so, but the way the OP was worded it seemed as if he had seen it someplace else, then waited to see it picked up and then saw the CNN and FOX versions ... or maybe I misunderstood and read too much into the OP

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Nice post. Yup exposed.

It's not "exposed", bamaEER it's about how any media outlet can view the same event and explain it to you differently using all the same facts. Media Bias cuts both ways, it is a dangerous sword wielded by persons who have a great responsibility under our Constitution. I only want to show that it is the same on both sides of the equation.

That is why it is the responsibility of the reader to judge the content and the source and rely on more than one viewpoint when examining the story. It is actually a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the media today that we have to do this.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Perhaps so, but the way the OP was worded it seemed as if he had seen it someplace else, then waited to see it picked up and then saw the CNN and FOX versions ... or maybe I misunderstood and read too much into the OP

Actually, WhiteTail, I saw the original story last night on CNN and then looked to see if it was reported anywhere else. So before running to the board and claiming an AHA!!, I waited to see what would happen this morning.

Today the same CNN story is available as is the same story on the NY Post, FOX and others. All the other headlines were about the same, except for FOX, and the story had a definite spin.

Others have already posted on this story with their own GOTCHA, so I took a different tact as I saw an interesting point of view in the way the story was presented.

 

[bamaEER]

It's not "exposed", bamaEER it's about how any media outlet can view the same event and explain it to you differently using all the same facts. Media Bias cuts both ways, it is a dangerous sword wielded by persons who have a great responsibility under our Constitution. I only want to show that it is the same on both sides of the equation.

That is why it is the responsibility of the reader to judge the content and the source and rely on more than one viewpoint when examining the story. It is actually a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the media today that we have to do this.

Agree completely. For me the exposed part was the counterpunch by Fox, choosing to downplay the basic fact that the WH tried to influence the FBI....a legal No-No.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Agree completely. For me the exposed part was the counterpunch by Fox, choosing to downplay the basic fact that the WH tried to influence the FBI....a legal No-No.

Got it, and just to be clear, this post is not about the issue in the articles, it is about the way the information is presented. There is another post about the merits of the content. Commentary on the FBI issue can go there.

I only want to show that when someone talks about media bias that, to the reader, there is a corollary to the source and whether they presented the facts accurately. In these stories the actual content is about the same, citing the same sources and quoting some of the same people. The way the information is presented, the spin, is very different.

So to me when someone shouts Media Bias, you almost have to wonder where their basis comes from as their original point of view may come from a source just as biased but from the opposite view.

This is not about inaccuracies in an article, which I think should not be called Media Bias or Fake News, but Irresponsible Reporting. There's a difference.

 

[Boomboom521]

The two major facts of the story:
1) who made the initial contact and for what purpose?
2) were the initial reports by The NY Times "overstated" or wrong?

Are completely different in each story. Without definitive confirmation on those two points, there really is no story. The WH has contact with FBI? No big deal. The White House has contact with FBI over a story about Russian contact during campaign? Well, that could be a very big deal.....IF the CNN story's facts about the above two points are true. If FOX's story coverage of the above two points are accurate, it's a non story.

If I am a CNN reporter, I wait to publish until I have the above two facts locked. Then I print and stand by my story (without revealing sources). If I'm a FOX reporter, I attack the story from CNN as misleading (because it's the ONLY story here).

 

[Boomboom521]

BTW....great post! You're making The PI Reed School proud brother. Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[atlkvb]

We've heard it all before...Media Bias, FAKE NEWS and as atlkvb likes to say "Lies with the truth". I heard about the story in the following links late last night and at the time there was only one media outlet going with this story. So, as we all should, I waited to see if anyone else would pick it up.

This morning I found multiple media outlets with the same story, two of them stood out to me in the way the story was presented; one from Fox News and the other from CNN. They are about the same topic, but definitely have a different spin in the way the story is presented.

Now it's time for you to decide:

CNN

FOX

Ex-Pat this is a perfect example of what I call "lying with the Truth".

What is correct about the story? That the White House alleged contact with Russians is under investigation? OR That the White House actually did ask with the FBI to deny allegations that they actually had contact with the Russians? (that's actually under investigation which both versions correctly reported)

However both CNN and the New York Times both 'allege' through unnamed sources that the White House tried to kill the FBI investigation, or at least they allege WH pressure on the FBI to deny that there were any conversations. That is the unsubstantiated charge from the CNN and NYT reporting, but there is no evidence of that yet revealed either from the FBI or the "unnamed sources".

Is that allegation proven?

No.

That's the Media's "lie with the Truth". There is an investigation...True. There is no proof of collusion or clandestine meetings between Russians and officials from either the Trump campaign or the White House, and there is no proof or evidence anyone from the White House either pressured or asked the FBI to deny any such contact.

The Truth is there is indeed an investigation underway as to whether the Trump administration had conversations with Russian agents about influencing the election. That is true, the FBI is investigating that. However the assertion that they(WH) somehow asked the FBI to debunk the story or even deny the allegations is not only false, it is not a proven portion of the FBI's own investigation! Even the FBI refuses to acknowledge the CNN or NYT's allegations which are being reported as FACT.

"Lying with the Truth"

Both the White House and FBI deny there was any pressure to debunk the story. So the Media (CNN and New York Times) have created a false narrative, and suggested the White House is covering up a story or an activity that never existed! ( it's sort of like asking when did you stop beating your Wife?)

That's the "Lying with the Truth"

Of course the White is denying that it ever asked the FBI to not report on any contacts between the Russians, because it never happened. Yet, the Media is reporting it as if the White House is trying to impede the FBI investigation into what if any contact existed with the Russians?

None of that has been proven yet, (it's what they're investigating) however the Media is reporting that the investigation has already reached that conclusion and the White House is trying to stop them from revealing their findings before they've even finished their investigation.

Unreal.

Classic example of "lying with the Truth"

Here's Business Insider's take on the same story:

pull quote:

"White House officials denied suggestions that they tried to goad the FBI into debunking news reports, CNN said. Additionally, the Trump administration has forcefully rejected allegations of contact with the Kremlin — and leveled harsh rebukes against US news organizations for using anonymous sources in their reporting."


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-ties-fbi-2017-2

 

[Boomboom521]

Ex-Pat this is a perfect example of what I call "lying with the Truth".

What is correct about the story? That the White House alleged contact with Russians is under investigation? OR That the White House actually did ask with the FBI to deny allegations that they actually had contact with the Russians? (that's actually under investigation which both version correctly reported)

However both CNN and the New York Times both 'allege' through unnamed sources that the White House tried to kill the FBI investigation, or at least they allege WH pressure on the FBI to deny that there were no conversations. That is the unsubstantiated charge from the CNN and NYT reporting, but there is no evidence of that yet revealed either from the FBI or the "unnamed sources".

Is that allegation proven?

No.

That's the Media's "lie with the Truth". There is an investigation...True. there is no proof of collusion or clandestine meetings between Russians and officials from either the Trump campaign or the White house, and there is no proof or evidence anyone from the White House wither pressured or asked the FBI to deny any such contact.

The Truth is is there is indeed an investigation underway as to whether the Trump administration had conversations with Russian agents about influencing the election. That is true, the FBI is investigating that. However the assertion that they somehow asked the FBI to debunk the story or even deny the allegations is not only false, it is not a proven portion of the FBI's own investigation! Even the FBI refuses to acknowledge the CNN or NYT's allegations which are being reported as FACT.

"Lying with the Truth"

Both the White House and FBI deny there was any pressured to debunk the story. So the Media (CNN and New York Times) have created a false narrative, and suggested the White house is covering up a story or an activity that never existed! (sort of like when did you stop beating your Wife?)

That's the "Lying with the Truth"

Of course the White is denying that it ever asked the FBI to not report on any contacts between the Russians, because it never happened. Yet, the Media is reporting it as if the White House is trying to impede the FBI investigation into what if any contact existed with the Russians.

None of that has been proven yet, (it's what they're investigating) however the Media is reporting that the investigation has already reached that conclusion and the White House is trying to stop them from revealing their findings before they've even finished their investigation.

Unreal.

Classic example of "lying with the Truth"

Here's Business Insider's take on the same story:

pull quote:

"White House officials denied suggestions that they tried to goad the FBI into debunking news reports, CNN said. Additionally, the Trump administration has forcefully rejected allegations of contact with the Kremlin — and leveled harsh rebukes against US news organizations for using anonymous sources in their reporting."


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-ties-fbi-2017-2

Just because the WH says it doesn't make it true. Unnamed sources broke the Watergate scandal too. Getting to the truth isn't always such a clean path. Integrity is key in journalism.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

"White House officials denied suggestions that they tried to goad the FBI into debunking news reports, CNN said. Additionally, the Trump administration has forcefully rejected allegations of contact with the Kremlin — and leveled harsh rebukes against US news organizations for using anonymous sources in their reporting."

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Trump's campaign advisers were in frequent touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official told the Associated Press late Thursday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...reports-linking-trump-campaign-to-russia.html

atlkvb, as I stated in other posts in this thread I didn't want this to be a witch hunt about the content, only the way in which the content was presented; an examination of media bias, which is frequently claimed on this board.

But now we have two additional examples of the same issue with yet another spin, your link from businessinsider.com and a quote from the original story presented by FOX News; the comparative story to the original CNN article I saw last night. They tend to contradict each other. So who to believe?

You and I both know why there could be an "anonymous source". They could be protecting a Trump insider who is leaking information or there may not be one at all. The later being the most troubling, we'd both agree.

The best way for this to be resolved is for the FBI to make an inquiry about the source, and as part of their investigation it could be protected as privileged information. Yet I doubt CNN or the NYT would give up the source as they could claim the same privilege.

 

[atlkvb]

The best way for this to be resolved is for the FBI to make an inquiry about the source, and as part of their investigation it could be protected as privileged information.

This is the point of the investigation ex-pat! The Fox story reports that the reason Priebus spoke with the FBI was so that the FBI could assure the WH the NYT/CNN story was "an over exaggeration" of exactly what they (FBI) are investigating.

from Fox report:
"To be clear, it was the FBI that contacted the White House to rebut the New York Times' story," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday night. "We merely asked them to inform journalists of the same point that they were making to us"

However the CNN report makes it seem as if the WH is covering up a meeting (or denying) it asked the FBI to kill the investigation or deny the allegations made by the CNN/NYT reporting.

from CNN report:
"White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14."

THAT ex-pat is simply not true! Both the FBI and the White House deny that charge.

Is there an investigation?

Yes.

Did the White House try to pressure the FBI to deny either contact with Russians or results of what it so far has learned from it (investigation) or any contacts?

No.

again from Fox report:
"The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report."
"The White House confirmed Thursday night that the conversation between Priebus and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe occurred on Feb. 15, but said it was McCabe who initiated the contact to inform Priebus that a New York Times report was overstating the nature of their investigation, Politico reported."

Two different versions of the same story to be sure. But the Truth of the story will come once the FBI's investigation is complete, not with the allegations being reported by both CNN and the NYT that the White is covering up the investigation, or trying to pressure the FBI into not reporting any conversations to kill the story before its investigation is complete.

Again, "lying with the Truth"

 

[atlkvb]

the basic fact that the WH tried to influence the FBI....a legal No-No.

That is an "allegation" charged by the NYT/CNN reporting. It is not an established fact proven either by the reporting, the FBI, nor even admitted to by the White House.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Two different versions of the same story to be sure. But the Truth of the story will come once the FBI's investigation is complete, not with the allegations being reported by both CNN and the NYT that the White is covering up the investigation, or trying to pressure the FBI into not reporting any conversations to kill the story before its investigation is complete.

True, but what is the truth in this story? Here is another quote from the Business Insider story you linked earlier:

Trump administration officials wanted the FBI to disavow the reports and say there was no contact between people associated with Trump and Russia, the network said, citing multiple US officials familiar with the discussions.

CNN cited an unnamed law-enforcement official as saying the conversations began between White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe one day after the stories were published last week. FBI Director James Comey prevented the agency from weighing in on media reports, CNN said.

So all of this reporting centers on CNN's "unnamed law-enforcement official" leaking information about the WH request to the FBI to disavow the CNN/NYT stories about Trump staffer's contact with Russian officials. Obviously, with all of the media sources now reporting and using the CNN/NYT story as part of their sources, it gets more and more confusing depending on which way you SPIN the same information. That was my point of the OP, not the veracity of the content, but the way it is presented.

Now there is a further report on Trump's demand that the FBI find the leakers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKBN1631GC

 

[atlkvb]

True, but what is the truth in this story? Here is another quote from the Business Insider story you linked earlier:

Trump administration officials wanted the FBI to disavow the reports and say there was no contact between people associated with Trump and Russia, the network said, citing multiple US officials familiar with the discussions.

CNN cited an unnamed law-enforcement official as saying the conversations began between White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe one day after the stories were published last week. FBI Director James Comey prevented the agency from weighing in on media reports, CNN said.

So all of this reporting centers on CNN's "unnamed law-enforcement official" leaking information about the WH request to the FBI to disavow the CNN/NYT stories about Trump staffer's contact with Russian officials. Obviously, with all of the media sources now reporting and using the CNN/NYT story as part of their sources, it gets more and more confusing depending on which way you SPIN the same information. That was my point of the OP, not the veracity of the content, but the way it is presented.

Now there is a further report on Trump's demand that the FBI find the leakers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKBN1631GC

The premise of the entire story is inaccurate ex-pat. CNN/NYT have set up the scenario under which their reporting is being used to substantiate an unproven fact. That the White house met with the FBI to pressure them to disavow stories of "contact" or "meetings" with Russians.

Not only is that not proven through the NYT/CNN reporting, it is denied by both the FBI and the White House.

There apparently was a meeting between Priebus and the FBI. True. However the NYT/CNN reports that meeting to suggest WH pressure to get the FBI to deny either their false reporting or at least their allegation(s).

Neither of those is either confirmed or proven by the CNN/NYT story, the White House, or the FBI. In fact, the truth is that it's all being denied and none of it has been proven to even have occurred (Russian meetings or pressure from WH on FBI to deny the allegations)

I said before the irony of your example here to demonstrate Media bias turns out to me at least to be a classic example of how so many of them "lie with the Truth".

I agree with your previous post that it is indeed a sad state of American Journalism we find ourselves enmeshed in.

 

[Boomboom521]

The scariest thing, to me, is that this is an attempt at either preventing the administration from using executive power to cover up their wrongdoings, or a media outlet(s) using their influence to damage an administration. Conservatives will believe the latter, and liberals the former.....and the moderates will get pushed or pulled to one side or the other....as the gap and division grows. Conservative or liberal, an administration using executive power to cover anything up should be serious to you, and media misleading the public should be serious to you as well. It shouldn't be a civil war over truth.

 

[atlkvb]

The scariest thing, to me, is that this is an attempt at either preventing the administration from using executive power to cover up their wrongdoings, or a media outlet(s) using their influence to damage an administration. Conservatives will believe the latter, and liberals the former.....and the moderates will get pushed or pulled to one side or the other....as the gap and division grows. Conservative or liberal, an administration using executive power to cover anything up should be serious to you, and media misleading the public should be serious to you as well. It shouldn't be a civil war over truth.

Well stated.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I agree with your previous post that it is indeed a sad state of American Journalism we find ourselves enmeshed in.

I like the Reuters story on this. Although they also cite the CNN/NYT stories and claims made, I like the way it is presented.

REUTERS

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The scariest thing, to me, is that this is an attempt at either preventing the administration from using executive power to cover up their wrongdoings, or a media outlet(s) using their influence to damage an administration. Conservatives will believe the latter, and liberals the former.....and the moderates will get pushed or pulled to one side or the other....as the gap and division grows. Conservative or liberal, an administration using executive power to cover anything up should be serious to you, and media misleading the public should be serious to you as well. It shouldn't be a civil war over truth.

^^^^THIS^^^^ As atlkvb said, well stated!

 

[atlkvb]

Just because the WH says it doesn't make it true. Unnamed sources broke the Watergate scandal too. Getting to the truth isn't always such a clean path. Integrity is key in journalism.

Correct boom. I would also add that just because CNN/NYT allege the White interference into an FBI investigation doesn't also make it true.

Why not just report on the FBI's actual findings, rather than trying to allege obstruction of it?

 

[Boomboom521]

I like the Reuters story on this. Although they also cite the CNN/NYT stories and claims made, I like the way it is presented.

REUTERS

A more unbiased take on the "story". Is it routine for the FBI to contact the administration to real them that news reports are inaccurate? Wouldn't that be covered in a briefing? Key point, that is being glossed over....initial reports were inaccurate, FBI contacted the WH to tell them so, and WH asks them to share with press? OR....WH contacts FBI to tell them to put out statement saying reports were inaccurate?

I think this story would fail in a beat writing course. The "story" is lost....all that's left are accusations and spin (like GA said)

 

[Boomboom521]

Correct boom. I would also add that just because CNN/NYT allege the White interference into an FBI investigation doesn't also make it true.

Why not just report on the FBI's actual findings, rather than trying to allege obstruction of it?

Because if there are attempts at obstruction....it's a big story that needs telling.

 

[atlkvb]

A more unbiased take on the "story". Is it routine for the FBI to contact the administration to real them that news reports are inaccurate? Wouldn't that be covered in a briefing? Key point, that is being glossed over....initial reports were inaccurate, FBI contacted the WH to tell them so, and WH asks them to share with press? OR....WH contacts FBI to tell them to put out statement saying reports were inaccurate?

I think this story would fail in a beat writing course. The "story" is lost....all that's left are accusations and spin (like GA said)

Again correct boom! (you're on a roll) To me the accurate way to interpret the story is to ask what is the status of the FBI investigation? Then ultimately to await their final conclusions then report those accurately.

There are facts into that. The (FBI) is investigating the White House. There was Russian meddling. The White House did meet with the FBI over allegations of media reports into influence of their (FBI's) investigation. All of that could have been safely and accurately reported without just as you said boom all of the media "spin".

However the whole Truth of the story is not yet known. Don't tell that to the NYT/CNN. Their story and conclusions are already written. They have every right to publish their allegations, but they will suffer the consequences if their allegations ultimately prove untrue.

 

[atlkvb]

Because if there are attempts at obstruction....it's a big story that needs telling.

Fine, then report it as fact, not an allegation. That's a serious charge boom. Obstruction of justice?

A President was impeached and forced to resign over that allegation once it was proven True.

 

[Boomboom521]

Again correct boom! (you're on a roll) To me the accurate way to interpret the story is to ask what is the status of the FBI investigation? Then ultimately to await their final conclusions then report those accurately.

There are facts into that. The (FBI) is investigating the White House. There was Russian meddling. The White House did meet with the FBI over allegations of media reports into influence of their (FBI's) investigation. All of that could have been safely and accurately reported without just as you said boom all of the media "spin".

However the whole Truth of the story is not yet known. Don't tell that to the NYT/CNN. Their story and conclusions are already written. They have every right to publish their allegations, but they will suffer the consequences if their allegations ultimately prove untrue.

This is where journalists need to step up and hold each other accountable!

 

[Boomboom521]

Fine, then report it as fact, not an allegation. That's a serious charge boom. Obstruction of justice?

A President was impeached and forced to resign over that allegation once it was proven True.

As I said, if I'm a CNN reporter I lock the facts and stand by my story (without revealing sources). It is curious that Trump is angry over leaks, instead of just allowing things to run their course....nothing damaging to national security was leaked. Leaks happen.

 

[atlkvb]

I like the Reuters story on this. Although they also cite the CNN/NYT stories and claims made, I like the way it is presented.

REUTERS

I agree ex-pat. The Reuters story is the most accurate and balanced. The quotes are put in the proper perspective, and the story itself draws no conclusions...only presents the facts at issue.

 

[atlkvb]

This is where journalists need to step up and hold each other accountable!

Correct again boom! Did you go to Church recently my Man?

 

[atlkvb]

As I said, if I'm a CNN reporter I lock the facts and stand by my story (without revealing sources). It is curious that Trump is angry over leaks, instead of just allowing things to run their course....nothing damaging to national security was leaked. Leaks happen.

If I were Trump I'd be upset over being charged with obstruction of Justice, even if it were True. That's embarrassing boom! If it's not true, I'd want that story shot down quickly. Something like that can undermine your credibility.

'Cmon man.

 

[Boomboom521]

If I were Trump I'd be upset over being charged with obstruction of Justice, even if it were True. That's embarrassing boom! If it's not true, I'd want that story shot down quickly. Something like that can undermine your credibility.

'Cmon man.

Then refer to it as lies not leaks. Without leaks from within the administration or the IC, the people wouldn't know much of any important information that keeps administrations in check.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

As I said, if I'm a CNN reporter I lock the facts and stand by my story (without revealing sources). It is curious that Trump is angry over leaks, instead of just allowing things to run their course....nothing damaging to national security was leaked. Leaks happen.

If I were Trump I'd be upset over being charged with obstruction of Justice, even if it were True. That's embarrassing boom! If it's not true, I'd want that story shot down quickly. Something like that can undermine your credibility.

'Cmon man.

Trump should be angry over both and is right to want to find the source of the leaks. Once found, however, there are other consequences. The leaker would undoubtedly be fired and may be subject to criminal charges. The leaks may also be validated and we may then find that there is an impeachable offense.

 

[atlkvb]

Then refer to it as lies not leaks. Without leaks from within the administration or the IC, the people wouldn't know much of any important information that keeps administrations in check.

Correct. But leaks designed to harm either the Nation or our safety cannot be tolerated. Leaks to expose corruption are fine with me.

 

[atlkvb]

Trump should be angry over both and is right to want to find the source of the leaks. Once found, however, there are other consequences. The leaker would undoubtedly be fired and may be subject to criminal charges. The leaks may also be validated and we may then find that there is an impeachable offense.

I think either Trump or the reporting will eventually be exposed through this story. I'd bet on the reporting. Russians aren't THAT smart.

Thanks for posting BTW ex-pat...good discussion (no name calling)

When did you attend WVU? I studied Journalism there too (75-82) so maybe we ran into each other in Martin Hall?

 

[Boomboom521]

Trump should be angry over both and is right to want to find the source of the leaks. Once found, however, there are other consequences. The leaker would undoubtedly be fired and may be subject to criminal charges. The leaks may also be validated and we may then find that there is an impeachable offense.

Leaks that endanger troops, national secrets, treaty talks, or international relations are horrible and are pressing issues for an administration. This type of low level leak, the President shouldn't waste his time on it, unless he seeks to prevent any information not approved by his administration from being reported in the press.

 

[Boomboom521]

I think either Trump or the reporting will eventually be exposed through this story. I'd bet on the reporting. Russians aren't THAT smart.

Thanks for posting BTW ex-pat...good discussion (no name calling)

When did you attend WVU? I studied Journalism there too (75-82) so maybe we ran into each other in Martin Hall?

I graduated from J-school in 2003

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

When did you attend WVU? I studied Journalism there too (75-82) so maybe we ran into each other in Martin Hall?

I'm a 1978 grad, so we may have had some crossover. Masters?