Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Go Straight To The Fifth Paragraph Of The Latest NYT ‘Bombshell’ On Russia Collusion

Posted on 5/26/17 at 6:46 am
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146498 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 6:46 am
LINK
quote:

The New York Times dropped another “bombshell” report on Russian influence on the 2016 election Wednesday, and once again what is presented as salacious news in the headline and lead is revealed to be anything but midway through the report.

“Months before the election, U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump’s advisers to influence him,” reads the headline blasted by TheNYT in a breaking news email. The story is clearly meant to further the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative the media has pushed for months, although it’s as yet totally unsubstantiated.

The NYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases. “Spies” and “revealing” information and big-time Russian officials who “exert influence.” It’s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion.
quote:

But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia.
quote:

Chuck Ross? @ChuckRossDC
Out of all the leaks thus far in the Trump-Russia probe, there have been none showing actual collusion.


INB4: the link is criticized as not being 'credible' because it is not MSM. It breaks down the strawman and flashy headlines 'with fifth paragraph, but there is nothing to any of what they are reporting,' quite well, no?
Posted by LSUTigersVCURams
Member since Jul 2014
21940 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 7:00 am to
NYT is known for doing this. They write sensationalist headlines and first few paragraphs, fillthe middle with gobbledygook, and then put the truth in the second or third to last paragraph. When reading NYT, always read the first and last three paragraphs and move on.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146498 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 7:14 am to
CNN BREAKING NEWS: Trump angers world leaders at NATO by telling them to pay up.

subheadline: Former President Barack Obama shines and delights all with a superb speech on walls not dividing us.

Paragraph 6: It has been said POTUS Trump's speech to NATO was well handled and others are lauding his new brand of foreign policy. Strength in leadership is what many Trump supporters think we needed with Trump.

Paragraph 7: Former President Barack Obama is the most gifted orator and world wide accepted President. We adore him and bow to his feet.

Paragraph 8: Globalism and politics like Venezuela are superbly met and applauded; as Obama showed meeting with Cuban leaders.

They have lost their gotdanged minds.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 7:16 am
Posted by Carville
Sunshine, LA
Member since Jun 2014
5321 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 7:21 am to
All the while not defining what the "collusion" was, nor stating that "colluding" is no where to be found as a criminal act.
Posted by Jay Quest
Once removed from Massachusetts
Member since Nov 2009
9800 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 7:29 am to
It's almost funny how determined they are to make lemonade out of turnips.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146498 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 7:35 am to
Is Hadji Obama still traveling in your spaceship with you now that he grew up?
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146498 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:35 pm to
bump for another fifth paragraph bombshell story.

Posted by TheHumanTornado
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since May 2008
3762 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:38 pm to
So in a criminal case in general if there is only circumstantial evidence would you walk away or continue to dig?
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48009 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:41 pm to
what circumstantial evidence of trump collusion do they have? They didn't say no "direct evidence"... They said "no evidence". That includes circumstantial evidence. Don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.


How many criminal cases have you investigated? Preosecuted? Wss there probable cause? What is the standard used? How does it apply to the statements made by he IC and members of the intelligence committees?
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 10:43 pm
Posted by Errerrerrwere
Member since Aug 2015
38235 posts
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:43 pm to
Another solid thread, CA!

Keep up the good fight, girl!
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram