What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html?mcubz=2

Based on this article I'd say it looks very bad for CNN.  This is not just a case of honest mistake, retract, all done.

[garbon]

Presumably that's why 3 people got the boot?

[CountDeMoney]

Yup.  He's bad enough.  But they have to make shit up to make him look like a traitor that sold out to the Russians.

Swallowing all that fat Russian cock has nothing to do with patriotism.  I sincerely doubt Trump can even think on that conceptual level.  Just so happens to be incidental.

Because some people (though certainly not anyone here) will consume those stories without questioning anything.

Consumption of these stories is about questioning, Muttski    That's what journalism is about.

[dps]

Presumably that's why 3 people got the boot?

It's good that CNN's president has set a zero-tolerance policy for not following proper procedures to vet a story.  Kudos.  That was actually my main take-away from the article that Yi linked to.

I would like to see them explain what was wrong or unsubstantiated in the story, though.

[Admiral Yi]

Presumably that's why 3 people got the boot?

I imagine there is a connection?

[garbon]

Presumably that's why 3 people got the boot?

I imagine there is a connection?

They got dropped because it wasn't an honest mistake on their parts.

[The Minsky Moment]

CNN

Scaramucci is an alias for Trump?

[dps]

Presumably that's why 3 people got the boot?

I imagine there is a connection?

They got dropped because it wasn't an honest mistake on their parts.

Do we actually know that?  I mean, it's clear that the review process wasn't followed, but did they deliberately circumvent it, or did they just screw up (granted that I don't know how you'd accidentally circumvent it, but I don't know the details about how the process works to say for sure).  Also, is the story itself inaccurate, or simply hasn't been reviewed properly?  I don't know for sure from what I've read.  I'd assume that it was inaccurate, because presumably if it simply hadn't been reviewed properly, it would have been reviewed after it was discovered that procedure hadn't already been followed and kept up/put back up, and the people responsible for putting it up without following the proper procedures would have been disciplined without the story itself being retracted, but, again, I don't know that for sure.

[Admiral Yi]

It wasn't clear to me from the story I linked whether the story wasn't vetted or it passed vetting.

[Razgovory]

The moral of the story is to never admit mistakes.

[derspiess]

The moral of the story is to never admit mistakes.

Unless you're facing a possible $100 million lawsuit

[The Minsky Moment]

The moral of the story is to never admit mistakes.

Unless you're facing a possible $100 million lawsuit

Then you loudly proclaim innocence and later quietly settle confidentially

[Razgovory]

If the president could sue for libel Obama would be a billionaire
.

[DGuller]

If the president could sue for libel Obama would be a billionaire
.

Not unless he waits for those Chinese deals to run their course.

[Savonarola]

CNN's pretty crappy but still the least worst of the cable news networks.

Which is probably why their ratings are the lowest of the cable news networks.



In my opinion the take away from the story is that, awful as CNN is, there is at least some accountability there; someone lost their job over this.  Unlike Rolling Stone magazine where no one lost their job after the UVA story not even after losing a defamation of character suit based on that story.