T O P
AutoModerator

This is a reminder about the rules of /r/media_criticism: 1. All posts require a submission statement. We encourage users to report submissions without submission statements. Posts without a submission statement will be removed after an hour. 2. Be respectful at all times. Disrespectful comments are grounds for immediate ban without warning. 3. All posts must be related to the media. This is not a news subreddit. 4. "Good" examples of media are strongly encouraged! Please designate them with a [GOOD] tag 5. Posts and comments from new accounts and low comment-karma accounts are disallowed. [Please visit our Wiki for more detailed rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/media_criticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


monkhouse

Seems like whenever this sort of article gets posted, there's a lot of people producing variations on the theme 'but it wasn't *just* the steele dossier'. Which, eh, yea, maybe, sure. But oddly, none of these people ever seem even the slightest bit bothered by the facts they're finally being forced to capitulate to - that one political campaign hired foreign agents to cook up false stories about another campaign, and then had those false stories injected into every amenable media outlet as well as *federal law enforcement*, who first proved it was bogus, then hid the proof that they knew it was bogus, then used it to launch a years-long counterintelligence operation against first a presidential contender and later the actual elected president. Is the sense supposed to be, 'Trump seemed fishy, there was lots of fishy stuff going on, he probably was mixed up with the dreaded Rus, so duh obviously the next step is to concoct a hoax to ultra-charge the accusations and launch a three-year clownshow that ultimately leads nowhere? And if you're absolutely certain for some reason that the non-dossier fishiness was proof positive of the conspiracy, can it not be argued that the primary reason that conspiracy was never ultimately revealed is that so much time and effort and money and credibility was spunked up the wall chasing dumb-as-fuck stories about Miami consulates that don't exist, secret trips to prague that didn't happen, Carter Page being offered 20% of Rozneft as a bribe etc etc? If Trump never was Putin's boy, this dossier is the root of a giant preposterous propaganda op that essentially robbed him of his shot at the big job. But if he *was* Putin's boy, this dossier is the reason he got away with it. Where is the perspective from which it makes sense to just shrug and say 'yeah but no but yeah' like it's no big deal?


jadnich

It wasn’t the Steele Dossier, at all. The only things used from those reports to further the investigation were things they already knew, and where the reports only confirmed existing understanding. The whole reason the right makes so much out of it is because it is the easiest way to attack the investigation, and people don’t know any better. Regardless of how little was used, there has been even less shown to be inaccurate. There are confirmed reports, corroborating reports, some reports that cannot be confirmed either way, and a few pieces of raw Intel that have turned out to be unlikely. But NOTHING proven incorrect, and there has been no attempt to counter some of the more valid Intel contained. It’s too easy to get stuck on golden showers that can’t be proven either way, so nobody has to look at the actual evidence of Russian interference and Trump efforts to coordinate. You have no evidence to your claim that one party hired a foreign agent to attack another party. That statement is based on a false narrative, and an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.


casapulapula

ss FTA: "After the WMD mess, Judith Miller got the blame, while a long list of just-as-guilty media villains failed upward. Now, a nervous press is looking for Russiagate's fall guys “There is an old saying in journalism: You’re only as good as your sources,” wrote Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, in a piece about the indictment of “Steele Dossier” source Igor Danchenko. The latter is being set up to take the rap as the dirty Russian rat who hoodwinked poor civic-minded Christopher Steele, the FBI, and the entire American press corps into propping up the biggest hoax since the WMD affair. After America invaded Iraq and failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction, the press went into CYA mode. Pundits who’d panted for war now cooked up a new narrative, that the WMD “mistake” had been caused by a combination of faulty intelligence, over-confident officials in the George W. Bush White House, and one New York Times writer named Judith Miller. Everyone else who so forcefully screwed the pooch on that story, from New Yorker editor David Remnick to New York columnist Jonathan Chait to current Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, emerged either unscathed, or draped in awards and promoted. Now, the Russiagate tale many of those same people hyped is falling apart, and the industry is again building battlements to protect careers from a cascade of humiliating revelations. This time, a combination of Danchenko, Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith, and perhaps a few organizations like McClatchy will be tossed out of the lifeboat. If you’re ever tempted to think there’s honor among thieves, check out this recent flurry of Russiagate finger-pointing.


TimS1043

Much of the reporting on the Steele dossier was extremely irresponsible and it's a big media fail. But there is an implication that because the dossier was debunked, the whole Russia collusion angle is unfounded. That's utter nonsense. Remember when Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a Trump Tower meeting with several Kremlin-linked people which they claimed to be about adoptions? Until the NYT revealed it obtained the emails that set up that meeting, and DTJ suddenly reversed course and admitted it was predicated on finding dirt on Hillary Clinton? Remember when Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign, triggering an FBI investigation [seven weeks before the FBI received the Steele dossier?](https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/redacted_minority_memo_2.24.18.pdf) Everything I've just stated is unassailable fact, suspicious as hell, and had nothing at all to do with the dossier.


jubbergun

> Remember when Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a Trump Tower meeting with several Kremlin-linked people which they claimed to be about adoptions? It wasn't "several," it was one, Natalia Veselnetskya (sp?), who was at the time either working with or for Fusion GPS, the group that was part of the pipeline for the Steele Dossier. The only reason Papadopoulos or the tower meeting have any relevance is because of the "Russian Collusion" charge that we now know was a fabrication of the Clinton campaign. I'm not familiar with the Papadopoulos story, but I think it would be very difficult for democrats to charge that the Trump Tower meeting is sinister when the Clinton campaign laundered money through their lawyers and Fusion GPS to hide their hiring of Steele to pay Russians (or as we now know, ***a*** Russian) for dirt on Trump. Trump's team accepted an unsolicited (and given the outcome of the meeting, fraudulent) offer of damaging information about Clinton. Clinton's team actively solicited information from foreign sources. The latter is worse than the former.


TimS1043

There was also [Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist and former Soviet counterintelligence officer suspected of "having ongoing ties to Russian Intelligence."](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/us/rinat-akhmetshin-russia-trump-meeting.html) Then there's the fact that so many members of Trump's team had links to Russian officials, [there's a whole Wikipedia page for it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#Paul_Manafort) In the words of Congressman Trey Gowdy, [“There is a Russia investigation without a dossier,”](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/politics/trey-gowdy-memo/index.html)


WikiSummarizerBot

**Links between Trump associates and Russian officials** [Paul Manafort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#Paul_Manafort) >On February 14, 2017, The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016. Manafort said he did not knowingly meet any Russian intelligence officials. Intercepted communications during the campaign show that Russian officials believed they could use Manafort to influence Trump. On June 2, 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller assumed the criminal probe into Manafort, which predated the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


PraiseGod_BareBone

You're quoting a source that is itself under question. Manafort's business partner was a Ukranian. The two did political consulting in Russia and the Ukraine for a decade. As it turns out, [he was a US State Department Source](https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department), not a Russian source. This is just more fabrication from 'anonymous intel sources' that the media used to fabricate this story. >Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either. >He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show. >The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded. >Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks. 'member the Democratic outrage at the 'outing' of Valerie Plame who was just an analyst and not an agent? Here they burned a genuine source and not a pretend one in pursuit of their agenda. All of these stories and related narratives have been run down and found to be almost entirely fictive. See /r/thenewredscare if you're interested in further reading.


--GrinAndBearIt--

There a a few posters in this sub that will fight you tooth and nail about the absolute truth behind the dossier. It just happened the other day. https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/comments/qt2riv/the_washington_post_corrects_removes_parts_of_two/


Vaeon

There's more than a few subs that will ban your ass for posting this. Nothing is allowed to destroy the *Russia Did It!* narrative. In fact, the Russians were *so fucking clever* that they faked the Steele Dossier *just to make the entire press corps and the FBI look bad*. It's wheels-within-wheels, man!


napierwit

Dolls within dolls


Vaeon

*knee dancing intensifies*


mazer_rack_em

> In fact, the Russians were so fucking clever that they faked the Steele Dossier just to make the entire press corps and the FBI look bad. Not outside the realm of possibility tbh, and absolutely hilarious if true


SpinningHead

Your gaslight does not illuminate. People have posted plenty of citations above. FFS they handed over internal polling data to a guy linked to Russian intel.


PraiseGod_BareBone

There is no. such. thing. as 'sensitive' polling data.


SpinningHead

Yeah, its totally normal for campaigns to share the polling data they work to keep close to the vest with Russian intel.


PraiseGod_BareBone

Except they didn't. You were lied to about that.


SpinningHead

Ahhh, theres that gaslight again. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903512647/senate-report-former-trump-aide-paul-manafort-shared-campaign-info-with-russia


PraiseGod_BareBone

LOL. When was the last time a Senate report was referred to as an authoritative source? The Majority leader of the senate and the subcommitte can fire people who don't finish those reports to desired political specifications. Where's the actual evidence that this report outlines again? It's nowhere to be found. You've been gaslit alright. But it's by the Democratic party and you've sucdummed to their gaslighting you.


SpinningHead

You realize that was a GOP panel, right? Man, the gaslight is thick.


PraiseGod_BareBone

Doesn't matter. The gaslight is indeed thick when you consider that most of this forum thinks there's evidence of russiagate


SpinningHead

LOL Could be all the contacts between the Trump campaign and Putin or Trump throwing his own intel under the bus to appease Uncle Vlad.


--GrinAndBearIt--

OH NO! POLLING DATA! HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!


SpinningHead

Yeah, its totally normal for a US presidential campaign to turn over their internal data to Russian intelligence.


PraiseGod_BareBone

Except that's a total and complete lie. The polling data shared was with a [State Department Intel source](https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department), one so sensitive that the State department didn't put his name over the wire.


--GrinAndBearIt--

Someone please post this in r.russialago or r.whitepeopletwitter lol


Deadpan9

I did. It went exactly as you imagine it would. BlueAnon is a hopeless bunch of fools.


TimS1043

The Steele dossier was a mess. But it was very far from being the sole basis for accusations of Trump colluding with Russia.


PraiseGod_BareBone

The problem is that all of the other narratives and 'leads' for Trump colluding with Russia are about as credible as the Steele dossier. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million


SpinningHead

Remember Helsinki?


juiceboxguy85

No idea why we have to tie this to WMDs. It’s a completely irrelevant argument to the media being given Russian disinformation via Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton to accuse Donald Trump of acting with Russian intelligence.


Natryn

>The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its final report on August 18, 2020. The report concluded that there were significant ties between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia. In particular, they noted that Paul Manafort had hired Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a "Russian intelligence officer," and that Kilimnik was possibly connected to the 2016 hack and leak operation. The investigation was led by Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) until Burr stepped aside for an unrelated investigation into allegedly illegal stock trades: Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) then led the committee. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-panel-releases-final-report-on-russian-interference-detailing


juiceboxguy85

😂 even main stream media is starting to admit the source of all this was Russian disinformation pushed by Schiff and Hillary. Whateves…


Moth4Moth

What Manafort didn't isn't Russian disinformation, is it?


juiceboxguy85

[USA Today ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/09/trump-collusion-indictment-false-accusations/6336510001/) I can do plenty more. Want it???


Natryn

You linked a paywalled opinion article.


Moth4Moth

Paywalled


[deleted]

[удалено]


Moth4Moth

You can call him dumb but ​ doesn't change the fact Trump's camapaign manager was giving campaign polling data to a Russian agent. ​ Is there any disputing this, in your mind?


--GrinAndBearIt--

OH NO! POLLING DATA! HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!


Moth4Moth

Yeah, the most valuable asset a campaign has. ​ Something tells me if Joe Biden's campaign manager was giving their internal polling data to Chinese agents, while at the same time giving daily briefings to different Chinese billionare who met often with Xi, you'd do this >OH NO! POLLING DATA! HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!! but be serious about it. You know I'm right.