Mainstream media errors in the Trump era: Your catalogue of the media's bias-fueled failure-fest
By T. BECKET ADAMS (@BECKETADAMS) • 2/9/17 5:08 PM

The press has a problem, and it seems to be getting worse. Whether through bias, sloppiness, or sheer panic, the mainstream media has dropped its standards since President Trump was sworn in.

Instead of adjusting adeptly to Trump's easy relationship with the truth and his tendency to abuse members of media, by dialing up their standards, a significant number of journalists have tripped over themselves recently to repeat every bit of gossip and half-cocked rumor involving Trump and his administration.

The rush to get these supposed scoops out in the open, whether in print, on television or on social media, has, of course, produced a rash of shoddy reporting.

Now this isn't to say that all coverage of this new administration has been slipshod. Rather, it's to say that there has been a disturbing and unusually large number of stories that have turned out either to be overhyped, inconclusive, half-true or flat-out incorrect. There have also been a number of reports whose sourcing is so thin, that to believe them would be to take a major leap of faith.

The one thing that these reports have in common is that they fail to provide readers with a clear and indisputably accurate picture of what is really going on at White House. The press's most important role is to shine a light on those in power. Bad reporting only muddies the waters, and it gives powerful people more room to do as they please. After all, whom are you going to believe: the guy at the top or the newsroom with a recent track record of botched reporting?

We didn't get to the point where people find the press less credible than the Trump administration by some freak accident.

We're keeping a database of all these media misfires as they occur, and we'll be updating this list whenever some new bit of crummy journalism appears. Depending on whether reporters settle down and treat their supposed scoops with greater care, this database may turn into a four- or eight-year project.

Starting in order of most recent, here is our best effort at a complete list of the shoddiest media misfires since the Jan. 20 inauguration:

Feb. 18: Swede Emotions

By Caitlin Yilek • 02/19/17 4:26 PM

The Claim: Trump claimed falsely during a campaign rally Saturday afternoon that Sweden had suffered recently from a major terrorist attack.

The Source: The Guardian, Talking Points Memo, the Daily Beast, the Telegraph, Raw Story, NBC News and many more.

The Facts: Trump never actually claimed there was a terrorist attack in Sweden.

Here's what he said Saturday:

"Here's the bottom line. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible.

You look at what's happening in Brussels. You look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We've allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we're going to keep our country safe."

Also from the Washington Examiner
Senate intelligence panel tells White House not to destroy documents in Russia probe
By Jacqueline Klimas • 02/19/17 4:17 PM

His remarks are definitely confusing, and his meaning is not clear. Trump clearly seems to have alluded to real terror events, including recent incidents in Brussels and Nice, France. But there still isn't enough clarity in his comments to claim he cited a specific, and non-existent, attack in Sweden.

It's possible that Trump, who is an avid cable news-watcher, was referring to a Fox New segment that aired on the evening of Feb. 17 in which the issue of Sweden's open door policy for refugees was discussed. The segment claimed Sweden's recent spike in crime is correlated directly to the number of refugees it has admitted. But this doesn't account for what Trump meant when he said "last night" in Sweden.

Again, as is often the case with this president, his comments are jumbled and confusing. He could've been referring to a non-existent terrorist attack, and he could've been referring to a Fox News segment. It's unclear.

At any rate, newsrooms don't have nearly enough information to report with certainty that Trump created a terrorist attack from thin air.

Feb. 17: The AP Botches It

The Claim: "Trump weighs mobilizing Nat Guard for immigration roundups."

The Source: The Associated Press.

The Facts: There is a lot wrong with this story. From overselling the leaked Department of Homeland Security memo on which the entire report hinges, to failing to provide proof that Trump was even aware of draft proposal, readers would be wise to remain skeptical of the AP report.

To be clear, the draft memo mentioned in the story is definitely real, as confirmed by DHS officials. It's just that it doesn't say what the AP reported.

For example, the memo didn't specifically suggest nationalizing the National Guard, as suggested by AP's reporting. The draft memo also never used the 100,000 figure cited by the AP, though it's possible the news group got this number by tallying the National Guard units currently stationed in the 11 states where they would supposedly be used to crack down on illegal immigration. The report doesn't explain this.

Lastly, just to be clear, the word "deportation" is never used in the memo. As far as National Guard troops are concerned, the memo only floats the idea of giving them the authority to assist in the "investigation, apprehension and detention" of criminal aliens.

"We stand by our reporting," the group's spokeswoman, Laura Easton, told the Washington Examiner.

The AP said it gave the White House at least 24 hours to respond to requests for comment, and said no one took them up on their offer. Amazingly enough, the AP also said it didn't contact DHS until the morning of the story's publication.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-errors-in-the-trump-era-your-catalogue-of-the-medias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432#

To be continued...(Read the link for details).

Keep it comng Bro. You are so on point. But the hypocritical, grossly hateful and terribly intolerant bunch of lefties will never learn.

paschu:


Keep it comng Bro. You are so on point. But the hypocritical, grossly hateful and terribly intolerant bunch of lefties will never learn.

Even when the truth hits the lefties in the face they will keep on pushing the propaganda against President Trump.

OLAADEGBU:


To be continued...(Read the link for details).

Feb. 17: Trump Caught the Bug

The Claim: President Trump's erratic behaviour suggests he's suffering from a serious disease he caught from all that sex he had in the 1980s.

The Source: The New Republic.

The Facts: The article is a work of 100 percent speculation. The notion that Trump suffers from neurosyphilis is based entirely on the author's personal musings.

This particularly ugly bit of conspiracy mongering is an op-ed, and it's not the same thing as a botched news report. Nevertheless, this article has a special place on this list due to the fact the New Republic and the author, Steven Beutler, are careful to emphasize his credentials as a doctor, and his background in treating infectious diseases.

The neurosyphilis theory is presented as a bit more than the usual op-ed griping. It's presented as a serious discussion, from a serious physician. The author practically dares his readers to question his authority on the issue. The unspoken point of having Beutler write the article is to give the totally unfounded conspiracy an air of legitimacy. For that, this op-ed ends up on this list of shoddy and unprofessional post-inauguration media bungles.

Feb. 16: Eavesdropping

The Claim: Trump allowed Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg to eavesdrop on his calls in January to Lockheed Martin.

The Source: ProPublica's Michael Grabell.

The Facts: The report cited by Grabell said no such thing. Rather, the Bloomberg News story, titled "Trump's F-35 Calls Came With a Surprise: Rival CEO Was Listening," reported Trump allowed Muilenburg to sit in on calls made to the Air Force general who manages the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet.

Grabell eventually deleted his initial tweet, and he noted his mistake.

"I tweeted a story with incorrect reading earlier. I was working and didn't note the [number] of [re-tweets]," he said. "Fine, it's a correction my original tweet was wrong. Read the story."

Before he deleted his incorrect interpretation of the Bloomberg story, it had more than 600 shares. As of this writing, his clarification has been re-tweeted 60 times.

OLAADEGBU:


Feb. 17: Trump Caught the Bug

The Claim: President Trump's erratic behaviour suggests he's suffering from a serious disease he caught from all that sex he had in the 1980s.

The Source: The New Republic.

The Facts: The article is a work of 100 percent speculation. The notion that Trump suffers from neurosyphilis is based entirely on the author's personal musings.

This particularly ugly bit of conspiracy mongering is an op-ed, and it's not the same thing as a botched news report. Nevertheless, this article has a special place on this list due to the fact the New Republic and the author, Steven Beutler, are careful to emphasize his credentials as a doctor, and his background in treating infectious diseases.

The neurosyphilis theory is presented as a bit more than the usual op-ed griping. It's presented as a serious discussion, from a serious physician. The author practically dares his readers to question his authority on the issue. The unspoken point of having Beutler write the article is to give the totally unfounded conspiracy an air of legitimacy. For that, this op-ed ends up on this list of shoddy and unprofessional post-inauguration media bungles.

Feb. 16: Eavesdropping

The Claim: Trump allowed Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg to eavesdrop on his calls in January to Lockheed Martin.

The Source: ProPublica's Michael Grabell.

The Facts: The report cited by Grabell said no such thing. Rather, the Bloomberg News story, titled "Trump's F-35 Calls Came With a Surprise: Rival CEO Was Listening," reported Trump allowed Muilenburg to sit in on calls made to the Air Force general who manages the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet.

Grabell eventually deleted his initial tweet, and he noted his mistake.

"I tweeted a story with incorrect reading earlier. I was working and didn't note the [number] of [re-tweets]," he said. "Fine, it's a correction my original tweet was wrong. Read the story."

Before he deleted his incorrect interpretation of the Bloomberg story, it had more than 600 shares. As of this writing, his clarification has been re-tweeted 60 times.

Feb. 14: NYT Duped

The Claim: Following Michael Flynn's resignation on Feb. 13 as the president's national security adviser, the retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General remarked on Twitter, "While I accept full responsibility for my actions, I feel it is unfair that I have been made the sole scapegoat for what happened."

"But if a scapegoat is what's needed for this Administration to continue to take this great nation forward, I am proud to do my duty," the general supposedly added.

The Source: The New York Times, Newsmax.

The Facts: Flynn said no such thing on social media. The Times was duped by a parody Twitter account. Flynn temporarily deleted his personal account several weeks prior to his resignation.

Feb. 14: One Hell of a Buried Lede

The Claim: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: This entry is slightly different from most of the others on this list.

The Times reported Trump's people communicated with Russian intelligence officials at around the same time hackers were publishing personal email stolen from of Democratic National Committee staffers and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

By all accounts this appears to be a legitimate story, and it raises serious questions about the Russians and the 2016 election.

However, the issue with this particular Times report is that there is a crucial bit of information that the paper doesn't mention until after the reader has already been introduced to the idea of Trump/Russian collusion.

The story opens with these two paragraphs:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

It doesn't look good for Trump. The report's headline alone leads readers to suspect a disturbing partnership between the president's people and the Russians.

But buried at the third paragraph in the Times report is a crucial detail: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

Oh.

That's an important piece of information, and it should have been included in the story's first paragraph.

The fake news media have been making blunders before Trump announced his campaign for presidency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU