[matt4077]

The difference between these cases is that even considering everything that is wrong with US administration, it is just not comparable to the Russian. People (and institutions) have a track record, and there's no principle in logic that prevents me from using that record to evaluate their trustworthiness: What you call an ad hominem, I call bayesian reasoning.

For example: It was, until this administration, extremely rare for the US government (the executive, to be precise) to lie to US-based press. They'd deny to comment, or say something that was meaningless when examined closely, or tell you to ask X (who will deny to comment). But, contrary to common believe, it's extremely hard to find examples for them straight-up saying A when knowing that it's really B.

[throwaway-1209]

It was, until this administration, somewhat rare for the press to _knowingly_ publish nothing but lies, and yet here we are. CNN (!) got caught on camera the other day stage managing a "Muslim protest" for the news. That's something that would cause a massive scandal just a year ago. These days everyone is so used to it no one even noticed.

[dlp211]

No it didn't[1].

[1] http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/

[zaroth]

This is another trend we are seeing -- so-called "fact checkers" claiming something is false because the most ardent reading of a specific claim, or maybe just a comment left by a troll in the same page -- isn't completely true.

"But nothing suggested that CNN “staged” the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment."

So it was staged, but not "really staged"?

This is like the fact-check where Trump precisely and accurately quoted a decrease in the national debt, but Politifact still checked it as "mostly false".

[1] - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/...

[shard972]

Snopes is a complete joke now.

That aside, I don't see how it's rated false. Just because they claim "well this is how we do things" doesn't make what they have been doing for years any less fake.

I understand they didn't go out, pay some actors to hold some signs up but the scene itself was created and crafted for the TV and in my opinion that's fake.

The media is supposed to be informing the public, when you start using tricks to an attempt to hoodwink your audience into your narrative that's the opposite of informing the public.

All they had to do was point out either that they brought a few protesters over from the main protest to show you them specifically, or maybe a better idea yet, just go to the protest and turn the camera on so we can see what is actually happening, not what they are staging for us.

[mladenkovacevic]

Can you describe how rare do you feel it was for US officials to straight up lie on or off the record? Also based on what data did you make this assessment?

I can recall of a number of occasions during the Bush and Obama era where high-level officials were caught lying, sometimes in public testimony. And I don't even have any data points for Russia because we don't get their official statements on our news so I don't even know how I'd compare. How did you get both sides of the story accurately enough where you feel so confident in your beliefs?