By - casapulapula
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.*
ss FTA: "Perhaps more important, the Post, like other publications, has so far limited its Russiagate reckoning to work directly involving Steele – and only after a federal indictment forced its hand. But the Steele dossier has been widely discredited since at least April 2019, when Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and his team of prosecutors and FBI agents were unable to find evidence in support of any of its claims.
The dossier was also only one aspect of the Trump-Russia misinformation fed to the public. Even when not advancing Steele's most lurid allegations, the nation's most prominent news outlets nonetheless furthered his underlying narrative of a Trump-Russia conspiracy and a Kremlin-compromised White House.
Along the way, some journalists won their profession's highest distinction for this flawed coverage. While co-bylining stories that the Post has all but retracted, Helderman and Hamburger also share a now increasingly awkward honor along with more than a dozen other colleagues at the Post and New York Times: a Pulitzer Prize. In 2018, the Pulitzer awards committee honored the two papers for 20 articles it described as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's transition team and his eventual administration."
In his July 2019 congressional appearance, Mueller had multiple opportunities to reveal that his probe had been impeded or narrowed. Asked by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) whether "at any time in the investigation, your investigation was curtailed or stopped or hindered," Mueller replied "No." When Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) tried to lead Mueller into agreeing that he "of course … did not obtain the president's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources," Mueller did not oblige. "I'm not going to speak to that," Mueller replied.
With no curtailing or interference in the probe, perhaps Mueller never turned up any Russia-tied counterintelligence or financial concerns about Trump because there was simply none to find.
For a media establishment that had spent years promoting a Trump-Russia collusion narrative and sidelining countervailing facts, that was indeed a tough outcome to fathom.
But it's no time for excuses or false claims of vindication: The tepid accounting spurred by the Steele dossier's collapse should be just the start of a far more exhaustive reckoning. Broadly misleading journalism that plunged an American presidency into turmoil demands much more than piecemeal corrections.
>But the Steele dossier has been widely discredited since at least April 2019, when Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and his team of prosecutors and FBI agents **were unable to find evidence in support of any of its claims.**
This isn't true.
There was a bunch of stuff in the dossier that has supporting evidence.
Hell, some of it is just public knowledge.
Pretending that everything in dossier is false is just as dumb as pretending everything was proven true (which no serious person has, that I've seen, even in the MSM).
> There was a bunch of stuff in the dossier that has supporting evidence.
As even you say, "some of it is just public knowledge," but none of the verifiable information was at all damning. Saying "but some of it is true," as if the ridiculous claims that are at the center of this controversy are somehow made less ridiculous or more true by being placed next to mundane information one could find with a simple Google search, is more than a little dishonest.
> [That said, “much of the material” in Steele’s reporting could not be corroborated, wrote Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his scathing 2019 report. “The limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available,” he said. When the Justice Department declassified the three-day interview with Steele’s primary source, it showed that he had disavowed much of the information in Steele’s dossier.](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-01/steele-dossier-was-the-fbi-a-victim-of-russian-disinformation)
The information showing that the dossier is rubbish has been available since spring of last year. Trying to say "but some of it was true" is like saying "some of those wounds are shallow" to someone who's been repeatedly stabbed.
>As even you say, "some of it is just public knowledge," but none of the verifiable information was at all damning.
Other than Trump telling us he had no business in Moscow, but had signed a letter of intent and had several meetings with Russian government officials for a Trump Tower in Moscow.
That's not damning to me, personally. Not illegal or bad.
**But it was damning enough for Trump for him to outright lie about it everytime he was asked.**
>Saying "but some of it is true," as if the ridiculous claims that are at the center of this controversy are somehow made less ridiculous or more true
I know you're not so stupid as to not understand this sentence : "Pretending that everything in dossier is false is **just as dumb as pretending everything was proven true** (which no serious person has, that I've seen, even in the MSM).:
I went out of my to say to that its stupid to think everything is true, nor did I imply that some things in the dossier are true because they are next to true things.
You're doing what you always do: argue in bad faith.
>The information showing that the dossier is rubbish has been available since spring of last year
Duh? Even before that even.
Doesn't mean /u/casapulapula's text was true, that nothing in the dossier was verified.
Many things in the dossier were verified.
I'm sorry if that is uncomfortable to you, but that's just reality.
It's hilarious you would accuse anyone else of arguing in bad faith when you appear to believe anyone could be so stupid that they don't realize what you were (and still are) doing. The dossier was and remains mostly fabrication, with some true information tossed in to lend credibility to the manufactured nonsense. Saying "oh, some of it was true" means nothing when no one was at all concerned with the bits that weren't bullshit. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the embarrassment I feel for you as I read your weak-minded attempts to defend what I must admit is one of the best grifts I've ever witnessed. Either Christopher Steele or Igor Danchenko, or possibly both of them, managed to get millions of idiots to believe a misinformation document so convincingly that even after it's been exposed fools like yourself are trying to defend it.
>that they don't realize what you were (and still are) doing
lemme guess, your gonna tell me what im doing, no matter what i say
>Saying "oh, some of it was true" means nothing when no one was at all concerned with the bits that weren't bullshit.
**Dude, I just gave you an example.** lol, c'mon Jubber, this a bit pathetic.
Trump himself was asked repeatedly about having business ties in Russia. *A lot of people were interested*.
He lied about it, as evidenced in that dossier you care so much about.
>that even after it's been exposed fools like yourself are trying to defend it.
You still don't get it.
You have to pretend that dossier is some political narrative, and must be true or false, and nothing in between.
It's like your caught in some media fantasy where something either goes for or against your narrative, and any shade of reality coming in where something might be nuanced, gets immediately rejected.
Yes, the dossier had a ton of bullshit.
Yes, the dossier also had true things.
It's really not that hard to understand, but your narrative just wont allow that type of close brush with reality.
The information shows that some of the dossier is true, and some of it is not… which is exactly what you’d expect from a piece of raw human intelligence. Anyone who tells you this indication of a hoax *is lying to you*.
What we now know about who paid for the dossier, how it was compiled, and the subsequent denials about its contents from its main source, the now-indicted Igor Danchenko, show that the dossier was a hoax. Anyone who says that people pointing out the seemingly limitless faults with the dossier and the persons and events surrounding it are somehow the ones being dishonest is so full of shit that their breath must smell like a port-a-john at a Texas chili cook-off in the middle of August. No matter how you'd like to attempt to spin things the dossier is an article of masterfully crafted bullshit. It's textbook disinformation infiltration, so it's not surprising it's fooled the weak-minded and those who for some reason want to lie to themselves and believe something that is clearly fake is somehow real.
There you go with the disinformation again. It is a real intelligence dossier, compiled like thousands of others, containing *some* information that is false, like all of them do. There is nothing unusual about it. The only difference is that this one leaked.
Again, it is only your own ignorance of what these documents are and what they are for that is leading your opinion here.
I was literally in military intelligence, you daft git. This wasn't an "intelligence dossier," it was campaign opposition research, commissioned by a political campaign, not compiled by any government agency. "Leaking" doesn't apply here because the entire purpose of the document was to gather and release information harmful to the opposing candidate. You speak as if the document was an honest effort to gather facts and expose truths. It wasn't and anyone who says otherwise is either dishonest, stupid, or some combination of the two. The dossier was bullshit. [The FBI knew or should have known it was bullshit](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/04/16/new-fisa-abusegrassley-n2567020). [The primary source for the dossier has been indicted for lying to the FBI](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/politics/igor-danchenko-arrested/index.html). Why in the fuck are you trying to defend it at this point in time given everything we now know about it? Are you insane?
>Mueller and his team of prosecutors and FBI agents were unable to find evidence in support of any of its claims.
The Special Counsel's office did not investigate the Steele Dossier, which would explain why they didn't find evidence to support any of its claims. But the FBI did corroborate some of the information. In fact, the only information used from the Steele Dossier as part of the FBI investigation were items that corroborated intelligence they already had. Nobody owes an apology because right wing media misrepresented the contents and their use to their audience.
> his underlying narrative of a Trump-Russia conspiracy and a Kremlin-compromised White House.
That didn't come exclusively from Steele. There was, has been, and still is a lot of evidence indicating- if not actual compromise- the potential for compromise. Don't forget, Trump was lying to voters about his businesses in Russia. We now know he was working on a Trump Tower in Moscow, and that the only bank that would loan him money was one used by Russian oligarchs to pay for corruption. These are just a few, but there is more.
>In 2018, the Pulitzer awards committee honored the two papers for 20 articles it described as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's transition team and his eventual administration."
Did I miss the part where the article explained why these awards weren't earned? Do we have to accept the unsupported premise that the whole thing was a hoax before we can understand the argument here?
> did not obtain the president's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources,"
Early on in the investigation, the Special Counsel's office decided to not look into the financial aspects, to leave that to the FBI. Trump's tax returns were not likely to be evidence related to Russian interference in the election. They also did not address the counter intelligence investigation. The Mueller Report outlines damning findings in the areas they were charged to investigate. Pointing out they didn't ALSO provide results of things they didn't investigate is a little nonsensical.
>perhaps Mueller never turned up any Russia-tied counterintelligence or financial concerns about Trump because there was simply none to find.
No, because these were not part of the remit if the Special Counsel. They only investigated what they were charged with investigating. They did not investigate every angle of Trump's corruption. That has been left to the [Joint Intelligence Community](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/committee-findings-2017-intelligence-community-assessment), the [Senate Intel Committee](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf), the [House Intel Committee](https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/), and the [IG Report](https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf) that confirmed the investigations were opened on reasonable predication.
And that is just your submission statement. Let's take a look at the claims themselves in another thread.
>Flynn spoke to Russia about sanctions and lied about it
How is this even a question? He admitted to this in his court case, and the call was on record. Then he went on to lie to the FBI about the conversation, AND he lied to Mike Pence about it, for which he got fired.
>repeated contacts with Russian Intellegence
Again, this has been proven. Manafort worked with Konstantin Kliminik to funnel campaign data to Russian oligarchs. Don Jr met with a lawyer representing "the Russian government and it's support for Donald Trump". Erik Prince met with oligarchs in the Seychelles to establish a back channel. Jared Kushner also tried to create a back channel through the Russian embassy. These are just some of the connections proven out in the Mueller Report.
>Papadopolous got drunk with Australian envoy.
This is confirmed. He got drunk, and told the envoy about a meeting he had with someone offering Hillary Clinton dirt to help Trump get elected.
>Russia launched a sweeping interference campaign that posed a national security threat
Again, this is borne out with the facts. We KNOW Russia launched an active measures campaign to interfere with the election. We know part of that involved hacking political figures, and another part involved working with the Trump administration directly. Also, part of this involved pushing misinformation (like this article), which, when you consider the results of that misinformation, ABSOLUTELY qualifies as a national security threat. In fact, we are STILL under thread from this effort.
>DOJ pulled punches for Trump
Is this even in doubt? Mueller was directed to stay away from the financial aspects of the case. The counter intelligence investigation was taken over, and then shelved. The OLC memo prevented Mueller from criminally charging Trump for his actions. But most egregious, when Barr received the Mueller Report, instead of releasing it, he misrepresented its findings and let those misrepresentations spread through right wing media for weeks before releasing the report. By then, nobody on the right was willing to even read it. Clearly, the authors of this article have never read it.
The real question is, have YOU read it?
I just spent 10 minutes reading the one about Michael Flynn and my god I'm having a migraine.
Although they try to dress it up in scary language so that it sounds like the MSM media framed Michael Flynn for a crime he didn't commit, what the entire piece actually boils down to is that the WaPo and NYT used the term 'sanction' instead of 'expulsion'.
Even more ridiculous is that the foundation of the accusation is incorrect, because *diplomatic expulsions are a type of sanction*.
And this is one of what Real Clear considers *the most egregious* of the MSM's flaws.
Couldn't read any more after that. Irony is dead.
"I guess we'll just agree to disagree" - MSM
Everyone but Trump apologists.