Story on DNC staffer's murder dominated conservative media -- hours later it fell apart - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240857] About the article: where exactly is the proof that they fabricated the story? At most it seems they misunderstood Wheeler's claims, but they also cited an alternative anonymous corroborating source, and you've previously been just fine with those.[/QUOTE] The anonymous corroborating source conflicts with a named source who says the FBI isn't even part of the investigation.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52241136]The reason an organisation like Reuters can use anonymous sources is that they effectively back the source's validity with their own reputations. Fox's reputation for accurate news coverage doesn't have any value at all.[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, all that has nothing to do with the article in question. I'm still not seeing how the article does anything to show that Fox's story was a fabrication. You're welcome to not trust anonymous sources, I do that all the time, but not trusting a source isn't the same as saying it's a proven lie.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52241366]Just to be clear, all that has nothing to do with the article in question. I'm still not seeing how the article does anything to show that Fox's story was a fabrication. You're welcome to not trust anonymous sources, I do that all the time, but not trusting a source isn't the same as saying it's a proven lie.[/QUOTE] As I said in response to this in a different thread: [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52241248]In a [B]best case[/B] scenario, Fox was [I]incredibly[/I] irresponsible in their handling of this story, having failed to verify or cross check any of the information reported in any capacity before making it their day-long headlining story. More realistically, given Fox's long history of misconduct, dishonesty, and unethical reporting practices, they intentionally misrepresented the facts of the case in order to provide the propaganda needed to distract from and discredit the major breaking news story relating to Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russian government officials in a closed door meeting from which US press were banned. This is evidenced by the primary source of the supposed information stating that the claims being reported on originated from Fox News journalists, and that the quotes used to support the story of the DNC staffer's wikileaks communications were taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood or misrepresented. Fox is guilty in this. One way or another, they fucked up [B]big[/B] time in using intentionally twisted and/or extremely poorly verified news in a blatant attempt to protect their political horse from a major national scandal, and they got caught in the act. You really cannot be defending this.[/QUOTE] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Fox has zero credibility. I honestly hope you're not trying to argue otherwise, especially in a thread about their making an unverified hoax their headlining story on the same day that a [I]real and major[/I] piece of breaking news was implicating Trump in potential misconduct.

[QUOTE=Potus;52239420]Gee let's check the_donald to see what they have to - - - [img]https://i.redd.it/9kwlhefvayxy.png[/img] Oh[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6bp6iw/4chanpol_is_locked_no_updates_for_hourswere/[/url] It keeps getting more insane. 4chan is down so obviously it's a cover-up. [quote]Someone in the hospital made sure he died that morning. We're asking the right questions and getting close to something....it's the only way to explain the complete media meltdown and blackout of this story....they are desperate and we are close.[/quote]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52241109]Yes... I definitely read the article. So FOX cited Wheeler's comments, and an anonymous federal investigator, and then Wheeler came out and clarified that he wasn't actually talking about any new information. How does this show that FOX knew that Wheeler didn't have any new information or that the anonymous source is fake?[/QUOTE] [quote] Fox News on Tuesday morning joined in the chorus, publishing a lead story on its website about the "DC MURDER MYSTERY." The story said Wheeler had made the claim Wikileaks had been in contact with Rich. It added that a federal investigator, who it said had spoken on the condition of anonymity, corroborated it. But Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death. Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN. Asked about a quote attributed to him in the Fox News story in which he said his "investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," Wheeler said he was referring to information that had already been reported in the media. A Fox News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. [/quote] [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52241255]I actually don't quite understand either. Fox News published a story about Wheeler saying Rich was connected to Wikileaks. I don't know the original source, but [URL=https://youtu.be/qtSM_xhNu0M?t=6m23s]Philip DeFranco shows a clip of Rod Wheeler[/URL], personally, on Fox News, saying that there's [I]absolutely[/I] a [I]confirmed[/I] link between Rich and Wikileaks. Did he then later tell CNN there was no evidence? What the fuck? So when he says he 'got that from the reporter at Fox News', he's talking about what he's saying in the video I linked? Is he just a big enough of an idiot to ape a second-hand accusation that confidently as if it was his own idea?[/QUOTE] seems like it

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52241379]As I said in response to this in a different thread: [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Fox has zero credibility. I honestly hope you're not trying to argue otherwise, especially in a thread about their making an unverified hoax their headlining story on the same day that a [I]real and major[/I] piece of breaking news was implicating Trump in potential misconduct.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending their story. It seems poorly done and ill-researched, unacceptably so, but that's not what you keep saying. You keep saying it's a "hoax," it's a fraud, it's a lie, etc. You are bringing intent to deceive into this and have absolutely zero proof of that. I'm not against attacking FOX News. I'm against attacking people in generally for what they actually did instead of hyperbolising it because you REALLY don't like them.

All I have to do is look at the context of this event and the subject matter of the article to know it was no accident. If this were a random article in a random news cycle on a random day, I'd brush it off as [I]just[/I] being terrible reporting. Having it released within an hour or so of the one of a massive update in what is rapidly becoming one of the biggest presidential scandals in US history? I'm not fuckin' buying it. You are giving Fox [I]way[/I] too much credit.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52242805]I'm not defending their story. It seems poorly done and ill-researched, unacceptably so, but that's not what you keep saying. You keep saying it's a "hoax," it's a fraud, it's a lie, etc. You are bringing intent to deceive into this and have absolutely zero proof of that. I'm not against attacking FOX News. I'm against attacking people in generally for what they actually did instead of hyperbolising it because you REALLY don't like them.[/QUOTE] Come on man. Its so obvious. You don't fabricate a story at the exact time news is dropping for nothing.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52243325]All I have to do is look at the context of this event and the subject matter of the article to know it was no accident. If this were a random article in a random news cycle on a random day, I'd brush it off as [I]just[/I] being terrible reporting. Having it released within an hour or so of the one of a massive update in what is rapidly becoming one of the biggest presidential scandals in US history? I'm not fuckin' buying it. You are giving Fox [I]way[/I] too much credit.[/QUOTE] Again, trying to cover up a story with another story is not the same thing as fabricating it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52243485]Again, trying to cover up a story with another story is not the same thing as fabricating it.[/QUOTE] Again, I think you're giving Fox News entirely too much credit. They are the de facto propaganda wing of the Republican party. The timing and subject matter of the article are just too convenient for this to have been coincidence. The story was a hoax, quickly thrown together to deceive viewership. It was a fake, a sham, a lie. Thinking that Fox wouldn't do such a naughty thing is give them considerably more trust than they deserve, and thinking that this is all just an accident or coincidence of timing is extremely naive. I'm just not buying it, and I don't understand why you are. Fox News has zero journalistic integrity. Do you honestly think that willful deception is beneath them? Do I need to remind you how long they spent propping up the birther conspiracy? The war on Christmas? Muslim Obama bringing Sharia Law to the US? Should I go on?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52243533]Again, I think you're giving Fox News entirely too much credit. They are the de facto propaganda wing of the Republican party. The timing and subject matter of the article are just too convenient for this to have been coincidence. The story was a hoax, quickly thrown together to deceive viewership. It was a fake, a sham, a lie. Thinking that Fox wouldn't do such a naughty thing is give them considerably more trust than they deserve, and thinking that this is all just an accident or coincidence of timing is extremely naive. I'm just not buying it, and I don't understand why you are. Fox News has zero journalistic integrity. Do you honestly think that willful deception is beneath them? Do I need to remind you how long they spent propping up the birther conspiracy? The war on Christmas? Muslim Obama bringing Sharia Law to the US? Should I go on?[/QUOTE] I said there's no evidence that's it's a fraud or hoax, not that it's impossible. I'm not a fan of basing entire articles on one or two anonymous, unverifiable sources for this very reason. You want to use anonymous sources? Go ahead, I know they can be invaluable, but there better be more than ONLY anonymous sources.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52243698]I said there's no evidence that's it's a fraud or hoax, not that it's impossible. I'm not a fan of basing entire articles on one or two anonymous, unverifiable sources for this very reason. You want to use anonymous sources? Go ahead, I know they can be invaluable, but there better be more than ONLY anonymous sources.[/QUOTE] There's an equal amount of evidence of it being true as there is evidence that points to it not being true. Do the math in your head and see what that equation comes out to be.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck -- it's probably a duck. Speculation though it may be, I think it's very reasoned given Fox's dispositions, credibility, and history in combination with the context of the timing, the content of the article, and the fervor with which it was pushed.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52243840]If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck -- it's probably a duck. Speculation though it may be, I think it's very reasoned given Fox's dispositions, credibility, and history in combination with the context of the timing, the content of the article, and the fervor with which it was pushed.[/QUOTE] So just to be clear, are you saying they totally made up the anonymous source; that no source actually exists?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246049]So just to be clear, are you saying they totally made up the anonymous source; that no source actually exists?[/QUOTE] The source they got their story from may exist. But that doesn't mean that's an accurate source. If I told you that it's raining cats and dogs, and you published that story, I am your source. I'm just an unreliable, and obviously unverified source.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52246134]The source they got their story from may exist. But that doesn't mean that's an accurate source. If I told you that it's raining cats and dogs, and you published that story, I am your source. I'm just an unreliable, and obviously unverified source.[/QUOTE] They claim to have a federal investigator as a source. To say that the story is a fabrication, then this source can't exist. If the source does exist, then it's a legitimate anonymous source for a story (for those fine with anonymous sources being the only basis of a story). The source being wrong doesn't make the story a fabrication. It makes the source wrong.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246158]They claim to have a federal investigator as a source. To say that the story is a fabrication, then this source can't exist. If the source does exist, then it's a legitimate anonymous source for a story (for those fine with anonymous sources being the only basis of a story). The source being wrong doesn't make the story a fabrication. It makes the source wrong.[/QUOTE] The fuck are you even arguing anymore.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246049]So just to be clear, are you saying they totally made up the anonymous source; that no source actually exists?[/QUOTE] I believe that they intentionally fed Wheeler bad information in order to make it look like he was corroborating a story that had no credibility to begin with. [quote]"I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN. Asked about a quote attributed to him in the Fox News story in which he said his "investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," Wheeler said he was referring to information that had already been reported in the media. [/quote] Fox used Wheeler's quote to make it look like he was corroborating the story, but Wheeler's statement was only made in the belief that it had already been verified, as he was led to believe by Fox reporters. As for the anonymous federal investigator who supposedly corroborated Wheeler's story? I believe it most likely that he doesn't actually exist. Fox used old speculation and comments about possible links between Wikileaks and Seth to revive the story as "links confirmed!" by feeding them to Wheeler as fact. That earned them a soundbite and a juicy headline on exactly the subject they needed and exactly the time they needed to attempt to completely discredit and distract from the Trump-Russia scandal just when he needed it most.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246049]So just to be clear, are you saying they totally made up the anonymous source; that no source actually exists?[/QUOTE] I will. I will say that. Fox News made up their anonymous source.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52246239]I will. I will say that. Fox News made up their anonymous source.[/QUOTE] I mean, it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do. He's attempting to build a case where we're somehow hypocrites for not trusting Fox's anonymous sources when we're perfectly willing to accept some other news entity's anonymous sources. It's a complete non sequitur, though, because citing an anonymous sources demands credibility and integrity from the entity citing it to lend credence to the story. The reason why I trust Rueters when they cite an anonymous source over Fox when they cite an anonymous source is that Reuters has infinitely more credibility and integrity. I know that their sources, while anonymous, have been thoroughly vetted and cross checked, whereas I don't have faith in Fox to do the same (if their sources even exist).

Fox fucking created a "Swedish defence minister" how you can even think that this ISN'T fabricated is beyond me Sgman

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52246315]I mean, it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do. He's attempting to build a case where we're somehow hypocrites for not trusting Fox's anonymous sources while we're perfectly willing to accept some other news entity's anonymous source. It's a complete non sequitur, though, because citing an anonymous sources demands credibility and integrity from the entity citing it to lend credence to the story. The reason why I trust Rueters when they cite an anonymous source over Fox when they cite an anonymous source is that Reuters has infinitely more credibility and integrity. I know that their sources, while anonymous, have been thoroughly vetted and cross checked, whereas I don't have faith in Fox to do the same (if their sources even exist).[/QUOTE] I don't know why you guys keep bringing up Reuters. Essentially every sources bases a huge portion of their big stories on anonymous sources.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52246338]Fox fucking created a "Swedish defence minister" how you can even think that this ISN'T fabricated is beyond me Sgman[/QUOTE] Haha, I completely forgot about that. Pretty neatly proves my point, thanks.

Fox and Briebsrt both make up sources, sgman91' and they're both terrible.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52246338]Fox fucking created a "Swedish defence minister" how you can even think that this ISN'T fabricated is beyond me Sgman[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, that was a thing. Good times.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246347]I don't know why you guys keep bringing up Reuters. Essentially every sources bases a huge portion of their big stories on anonymous sources. It's a pretty massive claim to say that they are making up sources. That would make them lower than something like Breitbart in journalistic integrity.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52246338]Fox fucking created a "Swedish defence minister" how you can even think that this ISN'T fabricated is beyond me Sgman[/QUOTE]

[url]http://nordic.businessinsider.com/fox-news-interviewed-a-fake-swedish-defense-and-national-security-advisor--who-doesnt-exist-2017-2/[/url] Oh they don't lie you say? Oh they don't fabricate stories from whole cut cloth? Oh you don't say do you? How you've lost so much rationality in the last few months I'll never understand

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52246373][URL]http://nordic.businessinsider.com/fox-news-interviewed-a-fake-swedish-defense-and-national-security-advisor--who-doesnt-exist-2017-2/[/URL] Oh they don't lie you say? Oh they don't fabricate stories from whole cut cloth? Oh you don't say do you?[/QUOTE] What did they do right after that came out? They, in primetime, said that he shouldn't have been invited on and that they made a mistake. Do I really need to list the times that other media groups have fabricated stories? (Off the top of my head, I can think of NBC editing the Zimmerman tapes to make him look racist.) [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] Or how about the WaPo having an anonymous source tell them that the Russians hacked into the electrical grid... and then it comes out that it never happened? ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b78c960c661b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation[/url])

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246422]What did they do right after that came out? They, in primetime, said that he shouldn't have been invited on and that they made a mistake. Do I really need to list the times that other media groups have fabricated stories? (Off the top of my head, I can think of NBC editing the Zimmerman tapes to make him look racist.) [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] Or how about the WaPo having an anonymous source tell them that the Russians hacked into the electrical grid... and then it comes out that it never happened? ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b78c960c661b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation[/url])[/QUOTE] That story says a Utility was hacked but it wasn't attached to the larger electrical grid. So it did happen

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52246473]That story says a Utility was hacked but it wasn't attached to the larger electrical grid. So it did happen[/QUOTE] They did a correction. The original story said the grid had been hacked. The editor's note on the top says: "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."