Or that’s a Complete fabrication at the request of a political party that has the ear of most major news outlets?
During the 2016 election these news outlets breathlessly repeated the misleading statement that 17 intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for the stolen emails based on a statement from USIC, which represented 16, and Crowdstrike, which was the 17th. The USIC statement says nothing about how many subsidiary agencies were actually suggesting this (later we learned it was 3 or 4).[1] A year later when Trump’s USIC issued a statement, NPR was quick to point out that the USIC comprises 17 organizations, but only a few of them reached conclusions in the report.[0] We’ve also since learned that Crowdstrike, while publicly saying Russia was responsible for exfiltrating data from the DNC, was telling Congress under oath that it had no evidence to such claims. no other agency had access to the servers in question, including US federal intelligence agencies, which could have performed forensics while a sympathetic party was still in control of the executive branch.
Excellent comment. This level of deception is disgusting. I can't believe I have to scroll to the bottom of a HN political post to find out what's really going on.
Meta: These are the karma burning comments that take some effort to cite (usually typed from my phone) and are generally left without response, non-sequitur, or circular citation.
My personal opinion is that all major news outlets (Fox included) can not be taken at face value, requiring an unreasonable amount of research to determine what’s actually happening in current events. It’s not even just major events, it’s even happening at the local level. Our local newspaper monopoly reported that our neighborhood school district was opening last week with no evidence and after the board had just decided to delay opening. It’s unclear there was an agenda or just sloppy reporting, but this was then used by parents to as evidence to pressure their own districts to open. None issue public retractions or corrections anymore, just stealth edits.
Then I come to a place like HN where I find critical thinkers in nearly every aspect except current events which have become so polluted by political bias. We get it,
conservatives need to shut up and tow the line. I’m getting too old for that. Facts can stand on their own outside opinion. /getoffmylawn
During the 2016 election these news outlets breathlessly repeated the misleading statement that 17 intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for the stolen emails based on a statement from USIC, which represented 16, and Crowdstrike, which was the 17th. The USIC statement says nothing about how many subsidiary agencies were actually suggesting this (later we learned it was 3 or 4).[1] A year later when Trump’s USIC issued a statement, NPR was quick to point out that the USIC comprises 17 organizations, but only a few of them reached conclusions in the report.[0] We’ve also since learned that Crowdstrike, while publicly saying Russia was responsible for exfiltrating data from the DNC, was telling Congress under oath that it had no evidence to such claims. no other agency had access to the servers in question, including US federal intelligence agencies, which could have performed forensics while a sympathetic party was still in control of the executive branch.
0 - https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/07/18/630057400/gui... 1 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016...
(edit: s/ ased/ based/)