Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 12:33 a.m. No.5064493   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4500 >>4523 >>4550 >>4616 >>4709 >>4825

Anons,

 

According to POTUS and the Intel team, the MSM has mischaracterized testimony at the hearing on Worldwide Threat Assessment.

 

Here are the tweets from POTUS and snippets from the report/ opening statement of that Intel team presented at the hearing.

 

Request for Anons to post MSM versions of what was said so that comparisons can be made between what POTUS actually said in response to his reading the news accounts.

 

As always, research for yourself and discern through logical thinking. WWG1WGA.

 

Pt 1 of 3

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 12:35 a.m. No.5064500   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4518 >>4550

>>5064493

 

Senate Select Committee

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-worldwide-threats

 

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-dcoats-012919.pdf

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 12:48 a.m. No.5064550   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4641

Mini-bun

 

Worldwide Threat Assessment

POTS Tweets compared with snippets from the Intel team's written report / opening statement. Request for Anons to research the MSM narrative in contrast with both these tweets and this statement.

 

Allspeed Anons

 

>>5064493

>>5064500

>>5064518

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 1:18 a.m. No.5064614   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4618 >>4627

The only reporter who covers GTMO full-time may be losing her job due to lay-offs.

 

https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1092513462108987398

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/04/mcclatchy-buyouts-could-claim-chains-full-time-guantanamo-reporter/?utm_term=.3c77f16e83a2

 

Deeper in the article are some tidbits that Anons might find of interest re tribunals.

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 1:22 a.m. No.5064627   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5064614

 

Sure, permitting MSM would be expected and routine; and it would also serve the overall Plan re Fake News. But, yes, alternate reporters also, by all means possible.

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 1:35 a.m. No.5064672   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4677 >>4709 >>4782 >>4794 >>4825

Been monitoring some of the MSM's "star" print reporters on Twitter. Looking for patterns and potential DS comms.

 

MaggieH returned to the audio recording of POTUS discussing free press with publisher. Why return? ("re-upping"?)

 

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1092496724013338625

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/podcasts/the-daily/trump-interview-news-media.html

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 2:18 a.m. No.5064794   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4825 >>4840

>>5064672

 

Recording of exchange between POTUS and NYT Publisher (with NYT editor).

 

Transcript of the recording, was off-the-record

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/podcasts/the-daily/trump-interview-news-media.html

 

Publisher brought up "alarm" at implication of fake-news rhetoric. POTUS tweet about the meeting.

 

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1092496724013338625

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/podcasts/the-daily/trump-interview-news-media.html?showTranscript=1

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 2:35 a.m. No.5064840   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4854

>>5064794

 

It would appear that the Publisher thinks that POTUS declares all press to be the enemy of the people. This, of course, is a blatant mischaracterization and yet the Publisher used that mirepresentation as the basis for his conclusion about the exchange he had with POTUS.

 

 

Excerpt from the exchange between POTUS and publisher of NYT:

 

POTUS:

 

I would say this. I don’t mind a bad story if it’s true. I really don’t. You know, we’re all, like, big people. We understand what’s happening. I’ve had bad stories, very bad stories, where I thought it was true. And I would never complain. But when you get really bad stories where it’s not true, then you sort of say, that’s unfair. And, you know, you have a tremendous power. You have the power of the pen, the power of the ink. You have a tremendous power.

 

———

 

A G Sulzberger

 

I certainly wasn’t expecting the full back-and-forth, his level of interest and engagement in the conversation. At one point, Maggie jumped in.

 

———

 

Maggie Haberman

 

But what do you see the role of the free press as? What is it that you think that the press does?

 

[…]

 

President Trump

 

It describes, and should describe, accurately what’s going on in anywhere it’s covering, whether it’s a nation or a state or a game or whatever. And if it describes it accurately and fairly, it’s a very, very important and beautiful thing.

 

———-

 

A G Sulzberger

 

Well, I think his definition is accurate, but it’s also narrow. I view the core responsibility of The Times not just as helping people understand the world, but in seeking the truth wherever it leads, holding power to account. Those parts of our job can be hard to be on the other side of, and I’m sympathetic to that. But those are essential parts of how we meet our responsibility to inform the public. But I was really struck. There was this moment — it was a very human moment, and it seemed like a very sincere moment — when he talked about being a Queens-born kid.

 

President Trump

 

But I came from Jamaica, Queens, Jamaica Estates, and I became president of the United States. I’m sort of entitled to a great story from my — just one — from my newspaper. I mean, you know.

 

———-

 

A G Sulzberger

 

And he just wanted his hometown paper to write one positive story about him.

 

Michael Barbaro

 

He just wants The Times to say something nice about him.

 

A G Sulzberger

 

That’s what he said.

 

———-

 

President Trump

 

I’m sort of entitled to one good story in The New York Times. I started off, I ran against very smart people and a lot of them.

 

———-

 

A G Sulzberger

 

I don’t buy his premise that he hasn’t had that positive story. The first story he got was “Trump Triumphs.” You know, that was literally the headline. But he’s a disruptive political figure who has had an incredibly divisive approach to governing, and the coverage has reflected that.

 

[…]

 

I mean, obviously, this is a man whose public posture is that journalists are the enemy of the people. And I’ll tell you, part of what troubles me so much about that phrase is what do you do with enemies? You fight them. You lock them up. You kill them in war. But that’s never been President Trump’s private posture with journalists. And I think what this conversation showed is this is actually a man with a lot of respect for The New York Times as an institution. And I think he wants to feel that respect back. But he wants to feel it in a certain kind of way, with celebration of his actions, with validation of his performance, that I’m not sure a serious news organization, an independent news organization, can give any president. And so we have this tension between a president who, in a room with three journalists, can have a really interesting, open conversation about the role of journalism and the role of his own rhetoric in putting journalists at risk. But in public, I’m not sure we can expect change. I hope it’ll change. I really do. But I’m skeptical.

Anonymous ID: 98fbf0 Feb. 7, 2019, 2:41 a.m. No.5064854   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5064840

 

It is not the job of a free press to hold people in power accountable. The job is more narrow than the NYT Publisher wishes to have it.

 

We elect representatives whose role, in the framework of governance in the Constitution and in the traditions of the Congressional, Judicial, and Executive branches of government. Ultimately it is the People who hold those in power accountable. Because they are accountable to the People.

 

Yes, an informed electorate is essential for a moral and attentive society to govern itself well. And so the role of the free press, as a subset of the free populace, is to gather information, to pursuit the truth, and to discern right from wrong, good from bad, uprightness from evil.

 

What the Publisher of the NYT misses, rather oblviously, is that his publication has taken sides against the role of the free press: rather than inform it disinforms.

 

And so it goes. Criticizing the NYT is now supposedly tantamount to threatening the role of the free press and the role of freedom of expression in the wider society.

 

In short, the Publisher has in head up his arse. IMHO.