CNN has been overrun by people who align against the president. Even so, they could still maintain journalistic integrity. But in their vigor to humiliate and denigrate the President they have surrendered all standards of journalism. So we end up with full-day coverage of Rex Tillerson contemplating leaving office without any verification. This story was refuted by Tillerson himself in under 24 hours. But was the story really based solely on:
“two sources who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity over the weekend said they would not be surprised if there was a “Rexit” from Foggy Bottom sooner than [a year] that.”
Relax CNN, no one cares what two people wouldn’t be surprised about. This type of reporting is one step below making news up.
Let us examine the game CNN plays with the minds of their audience.
SOURCES: RUSSIANS DISCUSSED POTENTIALLY “DEROGATORY” INFORMATION ABOUT TRUMP & ASSOCIATES DURING CAMPAIGN
CNN’s hope is that people in the doctor’s office look up from their magazines at the TV and see “Russia” and “Trump” in the same headline. This reinforces the Trump-Russia tale they’ve been peddling uninterrupted for months. For those at home, who actually watch the network, the anchors will jabber on for hours adding no other information outside the purposefully vague headline.
My theory, like the Deceleration of Independence, is self-evident. The entirety of the story derives from one (confirmed) source who cherry picked a factoid in which key points are intentionally withheld by the source, so as not to diminish the Trump-Russia narrative. But CNN is adept at laundering any anti-trump dribble into A-block news. Question time:
Was this type of spy chatter common in the past as well? The fact that this is an actual story implies that this is a new phenomenon for Donald J. Trump. Isn’t this what Russian spies have always done?
What is this “derogatory information?” What would motivate a source to leave out this key fact which is the crux of the issue?
“Russians” Can you be more specific? American spies intercept boatloads of Russian spy communications. Is this from some low-level nobody on Facebook or a (i.e.) senior FSB official, they must know.
“Discussed?” If they intercepted the conversation, tell us what they were saying. Was it a plan? Why do we get 1/10th of a story?
“Potentially” This is a qualifier denoting the whole story is quite possibly bogus. The most crucial word in the headline.
Regardless, this story is smoke not fire and will dissipate as such. No one will follow it up because no one cares, it’s as impactful as the golf channel to an eight year old on the way to his cartoons.
