If I feel one news story is less important than another news story, I can handle that within my own mind, I wouldn't think of complaining about the newspaper.

Conspiracy or Coincidence? A Timeline Open to Interpretation

At 6:14 p.m. on June 7, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. clicked the send button on an email to confirm a meeting with a woman described as a “Russian government attorney” who would give him “information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.”

Three hours later, his father, Donald J. Trump, claimed victory in the final primary races propelling him to the Republican presidential nomination and a general election contest against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his victory speech, Mr. Trump promised to deliver a major address detailing Mrs. Clinton’s “corrupt dealings” to give “favorable treatment” to foreign governments, including “the Russians.”

The White House said the timing was a coincidence.

DVaut1. The assignment was to tell us what's happening in the white house in the aftermath of Don Jr.'s scandal. By definition, its going to be about perspectives and opinions. Its not the same kind of assignment as telling us what's in the health-care bills.

Again, the assignment is reasonable. If we appoint you as 2+2 politics forum reporter for this assignment, what would you do differently? I think you responded that you would not do a story. When we need words on the page, you are usually more than happy to oblige. And your insights are great. But we've got a media outlet to run here. We need words on the ****ing page. And we need to seek the truth. Short of using anonymous sources, we have nothing from you other than whatever bs Sarah Huckabee-Sanders wants to barf out.

No one else from the white house is going to be willing to be identified with their quotes tomorrow either. So what's the plan? No story again?

This is growing strange. It's a bit afield from anonymous sources, but now media criticism precludes focusing on editorial decisions about relevance?

Assume for the sake of the argument you have two people competing for a very powerful position and it's a newsworthy event, and collectively the media, many of its editors, etc. collectively choose to cover a scandal about say one of the candidate's private email server while in government with a tremendous amount of time, attention and reporting. And assume the other person casually brags about sexually assaulting women, cavorts with foreign adversaries to break election law and has a history of being sued by business partners, vendors, clients and customers for fraudulent business practices.

And assume for the sake of the argument that the guy embroiled in scandals and engaged in almost countless scams and controversies is given as much newspaper page space, home page space, airtime, whatever as the candidate who had a private email server.

You have nothing to say about that? You can figure that all out, caveat emptor, readers just deal with whatever the media gives them?

REALLY?

Give me some money to fly to Washington and talk to people and get me a press pass and I'd attempt a story. And I would have a responsibility to source the information I gather or failing that, tell readers why I'm printing the information with anonymous sources.

Failing that yeah, I wouldn't print a story.

What's the point of this thought exercise?

OK? This is just a non-sequitur: "We run a business here, we NEED words on the page, guess good journalism has to suffer today, we're up against the Trump Admin, they'll only go anonymous or feed us tripe, looks like we have to bow to their wishes and print the gossip they're feeding us, GOTTA EAT AMIRITE? Paper ain't gonna fill itself with words!"

Like I understand there need to be words on a page and covering the Trump Administration is probably a tough gig. Not everyone gets it easy in life. When thoughtful people go away and think "how would journalism work well, how best do we inform readers?" and they come up with standards and protocols to follow, it's not like "well do your best buy if you NEED words on the page and your story isn't coming together, well, it's GO time, just do your best and print some gossip." That's not how things are supposed to work.

In yet another totes coincidence, the DOJ just settled a Russian money-laundering case that was about to go to trial. The attorney representing the defendants was the same one Jr, Kush and Man! A fort! met with

Also noted protector of justice and the Constitution Jefferson Sessions is just straight up ignoring a court order to hand over his Russian contacts, which is fine.

god i hate that France is helping to normalize this clown. he should be shunned for the fraud that he is. the French will rue this state visit.

Not that I don't like repeating myself but if the continuation of the journalism debate is simply more thought exercises or reminders that...:

- work is hard sometimes, anonymous sources make it easier
- unnamed and anonymous sources makes good copy, and people like gossip, and it's a market driven industry
- unnamed and anonymous sources makes it easier to deal with difficult or reticent people
- unnamed and anonymous sources makes the need to make a difficult decision about dropping a story or assignment that may not go anywhere otherwise
- there are deadlines

...I know guys. I know. Still, I remain unconvinced it's a good idea to use them except in the cases I outlined.

Is this cover going to end up framed on a golf club wall just like dad's Time covers?

"I love it" Hitler moustache

Luckily random posters on the internet don't have to adhere to the standards of justice.

Ugh.

That could really hurt Hillary's chances in the upcoming 2016 election.

The slavery.

Is this all of them now jared?

Form disclosures are like how an author approaches a great novel, you never get it right on the first draft.

It's a felony to lie or omit on that form.

lol at 100 names. Either some serious ****ing oversight or they're just trying to obfuscate some important name(s). Where's Waldo?!

First put in a couple years in Kearney, Nebraska for eight bucks an hour. Then a few more in Syracuse for not much more. Prove your skills, which includes cultivating and using sources. Maybe then, you can have your press pass. Until then, have some respect for the people who have gone that route to get to where they are.

This started when you said you agreed with Donald Trump that when you see anonymous sources, you should immediately assume that reporters are lazy and just making things up. On balance, they aren't. Further, you implied that making up stories was part of the institutional logic of the industry. It isn't. That's the point.

classiest prez evah



eta look at this stupid ****ing oaf



https://twitter.com/OskarMac2020/sta...52636375814146

Trumpteam is just going to straight up defend collusion after months of denying it and they are going to get away with it.

If there was ever a time since the civil rights era to be ashamed of this country it is now.

Fur yer maw

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...cals-extremism

My mom sent this guy in excess of $10k over the years. We never knew until after she died.

Whoa pony! I posted this yesterday and even added to it again earlier today. Reminder: Jefferson Disregard Sessions.

Not to completely humiliate you, but whoa...a 2nd pony has just left the stable!

I posted this earlier today too. Also referred to him by the same nickname. Sorry to bust your chops, but it was a real kick in the nuts to see you miss 3 of my last 4 Sessions stories.

Oh my bad you get the cred

Did you see the update?

It's ok, she doesn't like Bannon. She thinks he's against Trump and his good nature.

Paul Ryan too. She doesn't like the way Ryan "tricked" Trump into pushing a bad healthcare bill when Trump clearly said he wanted something "good for the people."

Not until now. It reminds me of his testimony, getting amnesia 20+ times but only for questions that would result in further perjury, implicating Trump or showing his recusal violations. Answers to all Republican questions were a breeze for his memory though.

Aside from criminality, it still doesn't sit right. A person with such memory issues clearly isn't fit to lead the Justice Department.

It is a milk mustache, which is even more elite.

No. No you couldn't. Unless you are an illeterate ftard.