If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Okay ABC News, when you get fact checked by CNN and proven wrong, you really should just get out of the news business altogether   (rawstory.com) divider line 43
    More: Followup, ABC News, CNN, Benghazi, Victoria Nuland, journalisms, Jonathan Karl, Joan Walsh, strategic communication  
•       •       •

2054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-15 08:44:47 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-15 09:41:27 AM  
I suppose the question is who faked the email.
 
2013-05-15 09:50:18 AM  
One scoop hardly changes the fact that CNN is now the most trusted taunted name in news.
 
2013-05-15 09:53:32 AM  
Hold on.  This proves its a scandal.  If CNN says it isn't, then it has to be.   Get me Wolf Blitzer.  We need a quote to verify this.  Maybe John King.  He has all those anonymous sources.
 
2013-05-15 09:54:56 AM  

James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.


From the bit I've seen, ABC and another news organization did the CNN thing and said "the emails show a scandal" instead of reading the emails.  They put their announcement ahead of reading the emails.  ABC has become...CNN.
 
2013-05-15 09:59:59 AM  

I_C_Weener: James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.

From the bit I've seen, ABC and another news organization did the CNN thing and said "the emails show a scandal" instead of reading the emails.  They put their announcement ahead of reading the emails.  ABC has become...CNN.


They should have know, they were clearly typed on a  IBM Selectric Composer Typewriter.
 
2013-05-15 10:10:17 AM  
Yes, let's get rid of ANY news organization that gets their facts wrong. Proceed, sir!
 
2013-05-15 10:18:01 AM  
ABC:  owned by big business propaganda makers. same as CNN, Fixed News, etc.    at least MSNBC try's to do the news without too much sugar coating.
 
2013-05-15 10:18:44 AM  
The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.

So, the State Department wasn't the only agency playing politics with the talking points. Wonderful.
 
2013-05-15 10:19:58 AM  

Apos: One scoop hardly changes the fact that CNN is now the most trusted taunted name in news.


Corporate News Network: we tell  you what we want you to know so that when election time comes, you'll be more likely to put our guy (usually 'business friendly' republicans) into office, which of course, will help us out.  thanks, FreedomLovers.
 
2013-05-15 10:24:01 AM  
CBS seems to be the only broadcast channel doing real news anymore. ABC is running to whichever political side they think will get the most viewers that week, and NBC has devolved into 30 minutes of Brian Williams getting nostalgic about the Jersey Shore with Gov. Christie while YouTube videos of the British Royals play in the background.
 
2013-05-15 10:24:12 AM  

I_C_Weener: James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.

From the bit I've seen, ABC and another news organization did the CNN thing and said "the emails show a scandal" instead of reading the emails.  They put their announcement ahead of reading the emails.  ABC has become...CNN.


from what I understand ABC took the opinion of the source and ran with it. Not just using the emails but embellishing it with the subjective opinion provided by their source.
 
2013-05-15 10:26:11 AM  

Linux_Yes: ABC:  owned by big business propaganda makers. same as CNN, Fixed News, etc.    at least MSNBC try's to do the news without too much sugar coating.


nah. they have a lot of BS on their shows too. Maddow and Hayes are about the only programs they have worth watching.
 
2013-05-15 10:27:09 AM  

Lord_Baull: Yes, let's get rid of ANY news organization that gets their facts wrong. Proceed, sir!


Thankfully, Fox News doesn't start with any attempts to be factual, so they're in the clear!
 
2013-05-15 10:30:11 AM  
TWO SCOOPS!
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Not raisins.... Benghazi purple rat turds.
 
2013-05-15 10:32:50 AM  
 
2013-05-15 10:41:15 AM  

Cletus C.: The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.

So, the State Department wasn't the only agency playing politics with the talking points. Wonderful.


Know how I know you didn't read TFA?
 
2013-05-15 10:43:28 AM  

Hobodeluxe: http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/better_answer_p l ease.php?ref=fpblg


Good link.
 
2013-05-15 10:44:35 AM  

bigbadideasinaction: Lord_Baull: Yes, let's get rid of ANY news organization that gets their facts wrong. Proceed, sir!

Thankfully, Fox News doesn't start with any attempts to be factual, so they're in the clear!



Friggin loopholes!
 
2013-05-15 10:47:26 AM  

Johnny_Whistle: Cletus C.: The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.

So, the State Department wasn't the only agency playing politics with the talking points. Wonderful.

Know how I know you didn't read TFA?


The fact I pulled a paragraph directly from TFA? Is that how?
 
2013-05-15 10:51:23 AM  
TFA: The Weekly Standard

I think I've found the problem.
 
2013-05-15 10:53:48 AM  
ABC is quite literally a Mickey Mouse operation.

After all, they're owned by Disney.
 
2013-05-15 11:00:36 AM  
postmediacanadadotcom.files.wordpress.com

"Man, this stuff writes itself~!"
"I know, right?"

 
2013-05-15 11:06:45 AM  

James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.


Duh, the liberal media.

they faked a contraversy over Benghazi to distract us from the contraversy of Benghazi.

Try and keep up.
 
2013-05-15 11:14:55 AM  

liam76: James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.

Duh, the liberal media.

they faked a contraversy over Benghazi to distract us from the contraversy of Benghazi.

Try and keep up.


The liberal Media liberaled the Liberal Media again?
 
2013-05-15 11:31:23 AM  
This is once again the left leaning mainstream media reporting on what occurred instead of what the intention of people acting are, which is quite clear.  Regardless of the actual text of the email, it is obvious that the intention of the State Department was to cover up the malfeasance of the Obama administration.  Without a doubt, the continuing investigation into this scandal will lead to a presidential impeachment.
 
2013-05-15 11:35:23 AM  

James!: liam76: James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.

Duh, the liberal media.

they faked a contraversy over Benghazi to distract us from the contraversy of Benghazi.

Try and keep up.

The liberal Media liberaled the Liberal Media again?


It's liberal turtle farkers all the way down.
 
2013-05-15 11:45:09 AM  
So basically ANYONE can be wrong.

So everyone should check everyone else.

Definition of peer review.

/mine stinks too...
 
2013-05-15 11:46:08 AM  

TeaHadist: This is once again the left leaning mainstream media reporting on what occurred instead of what the intention of people acting are, which is quite clear.  Regardless of the actual text of the email, it is obvious that the intention of the State Department was to cover up the malfeasance of the Obama administration.  Without a doubt, the continuing investigation into this scandal will lead to a presidential impeachment.


Character accounts rarely last long on Fark.  Too much work with zero pay off.
 
2013-05-15 12:21:41 PM  

James!: liam76: James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.

Duh, the liberal media.

they faked a contraversy over Benghazi to distract us from the contraversy of Benghazi.

Try and keep up.

The liberal Media liberaled the Liberal Media again?


Yes!

GhostFish: It's liberal turtle farkers all the way down


That made my day.
 
2013-05-15 12:26:04 PM  

Cletus C.: The fact I pulled a paragraph directly from TFA? Is that how?


You may have read tfa but your teabagger brain seems to come to some weird conclusion.
 
2013-05-15 12:28:45 PM  

James!: I suppose the question is who faked the email.


My understanding is that it was only given to congress, not released to reporters. So...take your pick of teatards who want this to be a bigger scandal.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:52 PM  

Cletus C.: Johnny_Whistle: Cletus C.: The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.

So, the State Department wasn't the only agency playing politics with the talking points. Wonderful.

Know how I know you didn't read TFA?

The fact I pulled a paragraph directly from TFA? Is that how?


Keep trying...
 
2013-05-15 01:14:12 PM  
nice try, but this is a really weak defense. jonathan karl said this regarding the allegation:

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words "State Department" were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN's Tapper.

This was my source's response, via e-mail: "WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about."


so yes, the intent WAS communicated properly. i understand the left wanting to put out the fire, but this lame explanation is not going to do it. in fact, it's had the opposite effect, because now the big news outlets are pressing the WH to release the emails. oops, backfire. sorry.
 
2013-05-15 02:00:32 PM  

the_dude_abides: nice try, but this is a really weak defense. jonathan karl said this regarding the allegation:

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words "State Department" were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN's Tapper.

This was my source's response, via e-mail: "WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about."

so yes, the intent WAS communicated properly. i understand the left wanting to put out the fire, but this lame explanation is not going to do it. in fact, it's had the opposite effect, because now the big news outlets are pressing the WH to release the emails. oops, backfire. sorry.


Nice try. Keep farking that chicken. The more you try to make an excuse, the more you fail.
 
2013-05-15 02:31:45 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Nice try. Keep farking that chicken. The more you try to make an excuse, the more you fail.


hey zep, i just checked cnn and this story is nowhere on the front page. considering this is supposed to be the big scoop that absolves the white house, shouldn't it be breaking everywhere? why are the big outlets not reporting it? maybe it's a vast right-wing conspiracy lol
 
2013-05-15 02:46:53 PM  

the_dude_abides: Zeppelininthesky: Nice try. Keep farking that chicken. The more you try to make an excuse, the more you fail.

hey zep, i just checked cnn and this story is nowhere on the front page. considering this is supposed to be the big scoop that absolves the white house, shouldn't it be breaking everywhere? why are the big outlets not reporting it? maybe it's a vast right-wing conspiracy lol


So, because it is not on the front page, it somehow makes it wrong?
 
2013-05-15 02:58:20 PM  
Zeppelininthesky: So, because it is not on the front page, it somehow makes it wrong?

yep, pretty much. the news outlets see it exactly for what it is (a bad excuse) and they're giving it all the attention it deserves (none).
 
2013-05-15 03:56:01 PM  

the_dude_abides: Zeppelininthesky: So, because it is not on the front page, it somehow makes it wrong?

yep, pretty much. the news outlets see it exactly for what it is (a bad excuse) and they're giving it all the attention it deserves (none).


So let me get this straight:  ABC gets paraphrased quotes from a source and presents is like the smoking gun that prooves a coverup (still not sure of what, exactly), then someone at CNN gets the actual email that shows that those allegations are complete bullshiat and that the email in question does none of those things, but it's still a coverup because you really really really (with sugar on top) want it to be, so you found some half-assed way to justify still believing the lie.

You truly have a dizzying intellect.
 
2013-05-15 04:11:21 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: someone at CNN gets the actual email that shows that those allegations are complete bullshiat and that the email in question does none of those things


maybe you can post the allegation and the email side by side and show me exactly how jonathan karl got it wrong :)
 
2013-05-15 04:51:15 PM  

the_dude_abides: Johnny_Whistle: someone at CNN gets the actual email that shows that those allegations are complete bullshiat and that the email in question does none of those things

maybe you can post the allegation and the email side by side and show me exactly how jonathan karl got it wrong :)


Or you can read TFA, click the links, and see for yourself.
 
2013-05-15 06:06:29 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: the_dude_abides: Johnny_Whistle: someone at CNN gets the actual email that shows that those allegations are complete bullshiat and that the email in question does none of those things

maybe you can post the allegation and the email side by side and show me exactly how jonathan karl got it wrong :)

Or you can read TFA, click the links, and see for yourself.


Facts don't matter to him.
 
2013-05-16 06:10:57 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Johnny_Whistle: the_dude_abides: Johnny_Whistle: someone at CNN gets the actual email that shows that those allegations are complete bullshiat and that the email in question does none of those things

maybe you can post the allegation and the email side by side and show me exactly how jonathan karl got it wrong :)

Or you can read TFA, click the links, and see for yourself.

Facts don't matter to him.


Facts? We don't need no steekin' facts!
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report