News What drives the creator of fake news to continue?

[zoobyshoe]

A reporter has an affirmative duty to the truth, but broader than that, recognition of one's own ignorance is the minimum intelligence requirement for learning. A reporter who doesn't even know enough to know they don't know anything about computers (and therefore should consult some people who do) is not competent to have a professional job of any kind. That's Dunning-Kruger territory. It's dangerous incompetence...er, well...yeah, that's what we are discussing.

The reporters knew they knew nothing in particular about hacking. For an expert opinion, they relied on the FBI/DHS. So, they did what you said they should. But you're not happy, so I guess you really meant they should get a second expert to check on their first expert. Is that enough experts? Does it stop anywhere? Or is it like the turtles that hold up the world: experts all the way down?

Are you referring to this?:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-GRIZZLY-STEPPE.pdf

That contains general guidance for recognizing and reporting threats. There isn't anything in there that could possibly lead to the WaPo story because it is not a report on the utility incident.

That's the statement. The criteria I mentioned is not in that statement, it was sent out in conjunction with it. It consists of all the computer code associated with Grizzly Steppe. The utilities they sent it to were to use it to screen their systems. And they did.

Here's a quote from a "DHS Official," from a Politico article:

"DHS regularly shares information with our private and public partners to help them defend their network and mitigate vulnerabilities. As part of these efforts, we shared technical information with critical infrastructure entities to aid them in identifying the malicious cyber activity known as Grizzly Steppe. When we become aware of a potential vulnerability, DHS offers our assistance and upon request, can provide technical analysis and support. Information shared with DHS as part of these efforts, including the identity of affected organizations, is confidential."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/russian-hackers-electricity-grid-vermont-233085
The Utility's press release:

Friday, December 30, 2016

Last night, U.S. utilities were alerted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of a malware code used in Grizzly Steppe, the name DHS has applied to a Russian campaign linked to recent hacks. We acted quickly to scan all computers in our system for the malware signature. We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding. Our team is working with federal officials to trace this malware and prevent any other attempts to infiltrate utility systems. We have briefed state officials and will support the investigation fully.

https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/news/3908/Burlington-Electric-Department-Statement-

In short, what tripped the alarm was Grizzly Steppe malware as defined by the FBI/DHS. That is: the Utility found code on a laptop that was classified by FBI/DHS as something from Grizzly Steppe. That alarm having been triggered, the Utility contacted the "federal officials." So, actually, everything "in there" (the joint report) lead to the WP story, since what was "in there" lead to the alarm being triggered, and the WP story was about the Russian hack which that triggered alarm was supposed to represent.

Now, having gotten here, to the point in the story where the alarm was triggered, I'll ask again, why shouldn't the Washington Post have relied on the expertise of the FBI/DHS, when the Vermont Utility, itself, was relying on them? There is actually, no particularly good reason for them to question their expertise unless they, themselves, are good enough at hacking to already know the law enforcement experts are not always so good. Why, now that you mention being aware of one's own ignorance, didn't the FBI/DHS call Greenwald or nsaspook and ask for some pointers? Shouldn't they be as alert to their own ignorance as you are requiring the WP to be? They're supposed to be saving lives. The WP is just a news outlet.

[assuming you're talking about the paper I linked] I'm not seeing how you get from point A to point B. Everyone gets phishing emails and viruses. I got a quality one today. I reported it to my IT department. This is normal practice. The starting point for investigating a potential breach. You can't get from there to the headline of the story. In particular, clearly the utility didn't think what you said they thought because they issued a statement an hour and a half after the article was published saying the title claim was wrong!

The initial, and soon corrected, original headline is not that important. (I, myself, did not see the story till after the first headline had been changed, and I was still alarmed by the hack attempt. I actually posted a thread here about it.)

This is the real screw-up here, the only one that matters: there probably was no hack attempt! Greenwald and others say the code the FBI/DHS fingered, and which the Vermont Utility found, could have come from anywhere, and was not actually indicative of a deliberate Russian hack! Greenwald compared the code to a Kalashnikov rifle: yes, it's made in Russia, but the Russians sell them to people all over the world. Anyone could have bought a copy, planted it anywhere, and the Utility picked it up by sheer chance. If that's true, the whole thing from start to finish is a non-story.

So, what you don't seem to have understood so far, is that the whole chain of alarm and outrage was triggered by code that was exaggeratedly labeled by the FBI/DHS as the fingerprint of a deliberate Russian hack. See? And yet you want to take the WP behind the woodshed for buying into FBI/Homeland without questioning it, just like everyone upstream and downstream from them did. FBI/Homeland hasn't taken anything back, hasn't backpedaled, issued any corrections, nothing.

You think the whole blunder lies in the initial, and brief, erroneous claim the hack had succeeded. In fact, the outraged Senator and Governor knew it hadn't succeeded. They were outraged by the ATTEMPT, itself:

Senator Leahy:

State-sponsored Russian hacking is a serious threat, and the attempts to penetrate the electric grid through a Vermont utility are the latest example. My staff and I were briefed by Vermont State Police Colonel Matthew Birmingham this evening. This is beyond hackers having electronic joy rides – this is now about trying to access utilities to potentially manipulate the grid and shut it down in the middle of winter. That is a direct threat to Vermont and we do not take it lightly.

Read it carefully: the senator obviously already knows the grid was not taken control of, he's outraged by the ATTEMPT to hack.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin lashed out at the Russian government, saying in a statement, "Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world's leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety."

Read it carefully: the Governor knows the grid wasn't taken control of. He's outraged that Putin "has been attempting" to hack it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...officials-say-russia-hacked-a-vermont-utility

I'm seeing criticism of both from Greenwald. But the connection you are making between them is your own and I don't agree with it. The most important faulty fact doesn't require any deep understanding of computers and viruses: the fact that the computer wasn't connected to the grid network. It doesn't matter whether the code was Russian or not, for that fact to be clear -- and clearly wrong in the WaPo report.

Completely wrong. The fact the laptop wasn't connected to the grid is neither here nor there since it might have become connected at any time. The Utility says: "We took immediate action to isolate the laptop." Why should they isolate it unless it could potentially have gotten connected to the grid either directly or through another computer?
What outraged everyone, as I demonstrated in the quotes above, was the mere attempt to hack. Doesn't matter that there are no cookies in the jar: it's finding a hand in the cookie jar that pisses Uncle Sam off.

The WP story doesn't fall apart when we find out the computer wasn't currently connected to the grid, it falls apart because the code they found wasn't necessarily, or even probably, a Russian hack attempt! (Nsaspook outright sneered at the suggestion an authentic Russian hacker would use such outdated and obvious malware.) The Washington Post reported an ongoing situation, the discovery, containment, and investigation, of an apparent Russian hack attempt on a US Utility. It was passing on information that a whole bunch of government people thought was true, one of whom fed the story to them. Unfortunately, that whole bunch of people didn't think to question what the FBI/DHS thought should be considered a Russian Hack attempt, because it turns out there probably was no deliberate hack attempt. The computer probably picked up some random malware online (according to the non-government experts).

Ultimately, though, this is simply a "buck stops here" issue for me: the person who reports it owns it.

But you see, that's a completely arbitrary personal decision on your part.

I didn't say they are in the same category as fake news. In fact, I provided, before this started, an article highlighting the difference.

I see now you linked to a Snopes article. My bad: I completely missed it.

Unlikely, with the possible exception of the leak itself.

Again, my bad: I was thinking of Clinton being impeached for "lying to congress," which would seem to be an ethical violation. Checking now, I find it's actually the legal crime of "perjury." He was under oath.

 

[nsaspook]

I hate to bring this up but it's out there as a 'Fake News' story.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nt-to-malign-mr-trump/512762/?utm_source=feed

Donald Trump and his lawyer on Tuesday night denied allegations in an explosive, unverified dossier that describes a purported Russian operation to compromise Trump.
...
Reached by telephone on Tuesday night, Cohen denied the dossier’s allegations.

The story is “totally fake, totally inaccurate,” Cohen said.

“I’m telling you emphatically that I’ve not been to Prague, I’ve never been to Czech [Republic], I’ve not been to Russia,” Cohen said. “The story is completely inaccurate, it is fake news meant to malign Mr. Trump.”

Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York. He said that his only trip to an EU country over the summer had been a vacation to Italy in July.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The source for that is ultimately Mother Jones. Mother Jones used to be reliable. Sure, they had a left-wing slant, but what they wrote was at least true. In 2015, I spotted them taking an infographic from the Washington Post, altering it, and republishing it claiming it was something else. This wasn't a little oopsie - it was a flat out lie. I trust nothing they write any more.

 

[jim hardy]

This wasn't a little oopsie - it was a flat out lie. I trust nothing they write any more.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-godfather-of-fake-news.894647/page-5

My last straw was when our networks told me Trayvon Martin was a choir boy.

Alleged Russian meddling doesn't concern me nearly so much as this stuff

http://www.disruptj20.org/

We’re planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations–the Inaugural parade, the Inaugural balls, you name it. We’re also planning to paralyze the city itself, using blockades and marches to stop traffic and even public transit. And hey, because we like fun, we’re even going to throw some parties.

https://refusefascism.org/author/web/

(bold in original)
On MLK weekend, there needs to be massive demonstrations of many thousands in key cities, including Washington. D.C., that grow to millions over the next week, protests that don’t stop . . . where people refuse to leave and more and more people stand up with conviction and courage demanding:

NO! We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!It’s not enough just to sign this Call – millions, tens of millions of people need to become aware of it in the days and weeks ahead. Print it and distribute it everywhere you go, leave it on buses and trains, in schools, in stores, places of worship, coffee shops … make it go viral on social media … use it as a basis for participating in or organizing activities where you live.

https://refusefascism.org/faqs-on-stopping-trump-pence/
These protests could be something with the character of the protests against police murder over the past few years, or the Occupy protests before that—but larger by several orders of magnitude and even more determined. Such protests would have to have the effect of figuratively “stopping society in its tracks”

Right to peaceable assembly is one thing but that's inciting riots. The sort of thing Lincoln warned about in his 1838 Lyceum address

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice...
...Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

Seems to me the "Community Organizer" community ought to heed John Lennon's lyrics to "Revolution".
http://www.metrolyrics.com/revolution-lyrics-john-lennon.html

We've got trouble right here in River City. Fake news is the among the mildest of its symptoms

 

[Nugatory]

Here's how CBS News reported it:

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

 

[Borg]

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

I Googled "cbs news beating story" and came up with several hits. This one has a link which states that it is the original audio.
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/cbs-...nd-biased-report-on-chicago-facebook-beating/

 

[nsaspook]

So now we have a major part of the rational for other news services to report the Unverified Russia Dossier story falling apart. It looks like this was just a pile of crap they assembled to show the President-elect what an intelligence report was not but they never used it but it was reported that they did leading to more stories about its contents.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...jects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586

President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.

A summary of the unverified reports was prepared as background material for the briefing, but not discussed during the meeting, the official said. During Trump's press conference Wednesday morning, the president-elect said he was made aware of the information "outside that meeting."
...
While multiple officials say the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.
...
According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

The briefers also had available to them unvetted "disinformation" about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Interestingly the NYT was not duped about the 'dossier':

...
The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.
...

 

[zoobyshoe]

The source for that is ultimately Mother Jones.

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits. The ultimate source(s) seem to be the former MI6 agent's Russian informants. According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible," but that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means at all. All it actually means is that they will give accurate accounts of what rumors are being passed around in Russian intelligence circles about the Trump/Putin relationship. The rumors remain unverified and probably unverifiable.

 

[nsaspook]

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits. The ultimate source(s) seem to be the former MI6 agent's Russian informants. According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible," but that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means at all. All it actually means is that they will give accurate accounts of what rumors are being passed around in Russian intelligence circles about the Trump/Putin relationship. The rumors remain unverified and probably unverifiable.

At least a few in this pile of trash have been verified to be false like the Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in Prague conspiracy theory. Now CNN says it's a different Michael Cohen from some unknown place on the planet.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/819187673961287681

 

[mheslep]

..According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible,"...

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.

...The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.

The NYT states those claims are "unvetted", a reason they cite for not publishing the dossier/appendix, i.e. they are, for now, exercising responsible editorial control in my view.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

About 2 and a half minutes in:

http://audio.cbsradionewsfeed.com/2017/01/05/08/Hourly-08.mp3

 

[nsaspook]

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.
The NYT states those claims are "unvetted", a reason they cite for not publishing the dossier/appendix, i.e. they are, for now, exercising responsible editorial control in my view.

+1
From the NYT:

So what changed on Tuesday? Why is this now being reported and discussed by every news media organization?

CNN broke the news that a summary of the memos had been attached to the classified report by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency on the Russian hacking and leaking during the presidential election and that it was given to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congressional leaders last week. That level of official attention prompted news media organizations to decide to inform the public about the memos.
...
But why put the summary in a report going to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch, virtually assuring it would be leaked?

So now according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing the memo was for the sole effect of helping Trump to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation." They didn't show him or talk about the contents of the memo (or the one about Hillary) so it looks like he was able to tell the obvious difference between the two with no extra help.
I would like to know just who and why that person believed that this was a good idea during a factual briefing session about serious problems with Russia espionage operations with the top intel chiefs. It seems a very unusual element to have in the briefing folder during these types of circumstances.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.

From the linked article:

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

In the video that is posted on the same page as the article, the FBI is specifically claimed by those reporters to have vetted the British agent and his sources. (I mis-rememberd the specified agency as the CIA: my bad.)

So, the reporters made a clear claim that can now be denied by the FBI if it is not true. We'll see.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits.

That's fair. Let's instead say "first reported use of this material in the mainstream media" or, if you like "who the website got it from".

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would like to know just who and why that person believed that this was a good idea during a factual briefing session about serious problems with Russia espionage operations with the top intel chiefs. It seems a very unusual element to have in the briefing folder during these types of circumstances.

Because Trump has made loud claims the intelligence community is unreliable. That being the case, someone decided they couldn't just brief him, they had also to be prepared to school him in what an authentically unreliable intelligence looks like. As you say, it did not come down to that, apparently. He was, however, later shown the unreliable report, after the official briefing was over.

 

[nsaspook]

He was, however, later shown the unreliable report, after the official briefing was over.

Yes he was, after it was leaked to the media.

I'm sure this will firm-up his belief in the intelligence agencies.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes he was, after it was leaked to the media.

I know your NBC link claims he was never given the 2 page synopsis the day of the briefing (Fri. Jan 6th) but CNN says they confirmed he was. One outlet's word against the other's.

Regardless, as Vanadium mentioned, Mother Jones discussed the existence of this "dossier" several months ago, and, after Harry Reid publicly pointed a finger at the FBI, saying he knew they had "explosive" info about Trump and Russia quite a few weeks back, it seems like a stretch for you to imply Trump was blind sided by the Buzzfeed article, that he had no idea anyone was making any such claims. I haven't seen any dates anywhere for when the actual dossier became available to the media, nor have I seen any claims about who specifically made it available to them. The impression I got was that it's been out there for months but that no one before Buzzfeed wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.

I'm sure this will firm-up his belief in the intelligence agencies.

Are you saying he thinks the intelligence community leaked to Buzzfeed, or simply that he blames the intelligence community for not warning him the info was out there, or something else?

 

[nsaspook]

I know your NBC link claims he was never given the 2 page synopsis the day of the briefing (Fri. Jan 6th) but CNN says they confirmed he was. One outlet's word against the other's.

Regardless, as Vanadium mentioned, Mother Jones discussed the existence of this "dossier" several months ago, and, after Harry Reid publicly pointed a finger at the FBI, saying he knew they had "explosive" info about Trump and Russia quite a few weeks back, it seems like a stretch for you to imply Trump was blind sided by the Buzzfeed article, that he had no idea anyone was making any such claims. I haven't seen any dates anywhere for when the actual dossier became available to the media, nor have I seen any claims about who specifically made it available to them. The impression I got was that it's been out there for months but that no one before Buzzfeed wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole.Are you saying he thinks the intelligence community leaked to Buzzfeed, or simply that he blames the intelligence community for not warning him the info was out there, or something else?

Read carefully, most of the text in their story seems to imply that but CNN does not confirm that. We know it was included in the document stack but even CNN says they don't know if it was used and have NOT said that NBC is incorrect.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.

It was the leak that a memo (synopsis) about the unvetted information was included as possible briefing material in the classified briefing that DNI is talking about. This generated false stories about the intelligence agencies using that memo to warning Trump about possible blackmail attempts from Russia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38596459

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Wednesday evening that the intelligence community had made no judgment on whether they were reliable.
...
Mr Clapper also said he had rejected Mr Trump's suggestion that US intelligence was responsible for leaking the claims.
The spymaster said both men had agreed the security breach was "extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security".

Mr Clapper said he had also assured the president-elect the intelligence community "stands ready to serve his administration".

So yes: I'm sure this will firm-up his belief in the intelligence agencies.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Read carefully, most of the text in their story seems to imply that but CNN does not confirm that. We know it was included in the document stack but even CNN says they don't know if it was used and have NOT said that NBC is incorrect.

What I'm getting out of that is: he was given a copy of the 2 page synopsis along with everything else, but it was not specifically discussed at the briefing. Point being, he had the information despite it not being verbally presented to him or discussed.

It was the leak that a memo (synopsis) about the unvetted information was included as possible briefing material in the classified briefing that DNI is talking about. This generated false stories about the intelligence agencies using that synopsis to warning Trump about possible blackmail attempts from Russia.

If those stories that the intelligence agencies planned to use the memo that way are false, it's kind of a non-event, isn't it? This isn't what anyone is upset about. The pee hit the fan when Buzzfeed published the whole 35 page collection of memos from the British guy (now known as Steele). Your link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nt-to-malign-mr-trump/512762/?utm_source=feed

It's not a leak of the existence of a two page summary whose purpose has been mischaracterized by the media that lit any fires. Trump's been defending himself against the explicit stream of Russian intelligence hearsay/rumor only found in the Buzzfeed article.

 

[nsaspook]

It should have been a non-event but it was leaked, seemly in a way that put the worst possible misleading or false spin on the information.

The sequence of the latest news blowup is CNN was first with a match with the leaked memo story and Buzzfeed published the whole 35 page collection of memos in a response.

BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

 

[mheslep]

What I'm getting out of that is: he was given a copy of the 2 page synopsis along with everything else, but it was not specifically discussed at the briefing. Point being, he had the information despite it not being verbally presented to him or discussed...

No per NBC, no per Fox.

Trump was not given any summary of Russian claims about compromising info, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...aims-about-compromising-info-source-says.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

I guess, but it seems like you two are trying to split a hair that doesn't require splitting for your point to be made. Buzzfeed asserts, simply, that CNN reported the documents were given to Trump. It makes no mention of the reason CNN gives for why the documents might have been given to Trump as justification for its own release of the full slew of memos. Instead it says, "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government." A justification which sounds pretty disingenuous to me. Regardless, all that was required to trigger Buzzfeed was an assertion the documents had been given to Trump. I don't see the included reasons as playing an important role.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"first reported use of this material in the mainstream media"

And, incidentally, here it is:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...ging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

 

[nsaspook]

I guess, but it seems like you two are trying to split a hair that doesn't require splitting for your point to be made. Buzzfeed asserts, simply, that CNN reported the documents were given to Trump. It makes no mention of the reason CNN gives for why the documents might have been given to Trump as justification for its own release of the full slew of memos. Instead it says, "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government." A justification which sounds pretty disingenuous to me. Regardless, all that was required to trigger Buzzfeed was an assertion the documents had been given to Trump. I don't see the included reasons as playing an important role.

I agree with your main points that this should have been a nothing story or at least a story about why Trump needs the IC to help him navigate the minefield of being President but CNN broke the MSM embargo on these rumors with an 'exclusive' that parts of 'made for money' 'find me dirt' rumors were in the mix as a possible attempt to compromise him.

"Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him"

 

[zoobyshoe]

FWIW, CNN is now saying Biden has confirmed he and Obama were briefed about the British memos, and neither thought it was worth much:

Biden's office confirmed that the vice president said he and Obama were briefed about the claims but said that neither Biden nor Obama asked for more information about them. Biden's office also said the vice president told reporters that intelligence leaders felt obligated to tell Obama because they were planning on informing Trump. Biden also said he read the entire 35-page report.
Biden's office also confirmed that Obama, according to the vice president, asked, "What does this have to do with anything?"
The comments by Biden are the first by any top government official confirming that they were told about the allegations as part of their intelligence briefing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-intelligence-report/index.html

 

[mheslep]

NBC's Chuck Todd interviewed the Buzzfeed editor. Todd is sharply critical of the guy on air, and more so than I ever recall seeing in a news outlet on news outlet exchange.

@5:40
"You made a knowing decision to put out an untruth"

 

[nsaspook]

National Inquirer
TMZ
Buzzfeed
Weekly World News

 

[jim hardy]

Think somebody in intel might've set up somebody in journalism ?

"Go play your hand you big-talkin' man, make a big fool of yourself ! _{june carter cash} "

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

What a despicable act. It's a shame the profanity filter on PF won't let me properly express my true feelings.

I think saying it is a despicable act is very expressive. Just for the information of the people who run this forum, I like the profanity filter and the PF quality control in general. This is the only social media I am on now, because there is moderation or, if you prefer, censorship. So I say thanks to PF for providing at least one place where there can be a civil discussion, without nastiness. I also like the absence of pseudoscience. Long live editorial standards!