RUTHFULLY YOURS

I believe that the New Media deserve major credit for deconstructing the Old Media narrative. Right after James Comey’s much-hyped congressional testimony, several New Media sites picked up the real news – namely, that Comey had actually outed himself as a top leaker in the Deep Government by sending his own written memo, typed on government time, on a government computer, to attack the president of the United States, with no proof of illegal or unethical behavior at all.

That should have been the lead story for the New Media. We had the Comey leaker story, and we told the story, but it was reactive; it took the false narrative of Trump’s supposed obstruction of justice as the point of departure. That seems to validate the false accusation against Trump and only pointed out its falsehoods.

The Old Media don’t play defense. They play offense, and let the truth be damned. The New Media are winning the battle for American minds, but they have not yet learned to actively drive the news cycle.

As a result, Trump’s magnificent spectacle in Saudi Arabia, which turned the Saudis, along with 50 national Muslim leaders, along with Egypt, Israel and the United States, against Iranian aggression and Iran’s proxy state, Qatar, went more or less unnoticed. Today, the Gulf Council alliance, backed by the United States, is starting to choke Arab commerce with Qatar, and if that campaign succeeds, the Qataris will have to back down.

On top of all that, for the first time since 9/11, we have pinpointed a major source of funding and direction for horrific massacres in the West – namely, Qatar. This is a clear move against the Iranian terror sponsors as well, therefore this is a strategic move against the Shi’ite half of jihad.

The Saudis have to do much, much more. But Trump (aided by Mattis and Jared Kushner) has started a major turning point in the jihad war. The huge MOAB weapon against ISIS in Afghanistan is part of the strategic turnaround.

This would be amusing if the subject matter weren’t so serious.

CNN was caught on video last week literally staging an anti-terror protest by a group of Muslim women.

The crew tightly packs the approximately two dozen protesters together with signs facing the camera, while Anderson monologues about the “beautiful” anti-terror protest.

CNN International responded to the claims that they staged the protest, writing, “This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so.”

Oh, really? Here’s a YouTube video showing what was going on prior to the Twitter video:

Youtube video taken by Claire Jordan shows her milling around the scene and “protest” prior to CNN lining up the protesters for their on-air shot.

There is a group of people in the area, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and some of them can be seen handing out bouquets of flowers and posters.

Jordan, narrating the video, observes, “you see more press than anyone else.

Jordan then crosses the street and shows the Muslim women who were featured on the CNN broadcast. They are located on the opposite side of the street and “they’re taking selfies, none of them have got flowers.”

“I was there just before,” she explains, “and you see, again, this is the group of women and the little boy–they’re just getting their posters now.”

The Muslim women then gather their posters and cross the street to set up for the CNN shot that was used in the broadcast.

“Nonsense,” eh? They “simply filmed” this “authentic” display of anti-terrorism sentiment by a small group of Muslim women? (We had bigger protests against “meatless Fridays” at my high school back in the day.)

Question: Where did the flowers come from? Who made up the signs? Are we to believe that a group of random Muslim women spontaneously showed up and wanted to express their sentiments against terrorism?

I am not saying that these women are expressing a false belief. I have no doubt they — and millions of Muslims around the world — are opposed to terrorism.

But a prominent media outlet staging a protest to play to politically correct notions of what we “should” think about Muslim attitudes toward terrorists and terrorism — and then issuing a lying denial of their part in broadcasting fake news — is absolutely outrageous. Why not just come clean and state the obvious — that protests make good TV and choreographing a demonstration makes sense from a profit-and-loss perspective?

CNN could claim that the sentiment expressed at the demonstration was real and that they just helped get the message out a little bit. But no matter how authentic the feelings, the fact that CNN inserted themselves into the scene to heighten the dramatic effect is inexcusable.

David A. Vise, the author, was a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at The Washington Post for 23 years. He has also written several acclaimed non-fiction books, including ‘The Bureau and the Mole: The Unmasking of Robert Phillip Hanssen, the Most Dangerous Double Agent in FBI History.’

CNN’s publication and retraction of a story about the Trump-Comey conflict illustrates the biggest bias in journalism: the bias in favor of “The Story.”

Similarly, the high-profile reporting by The New York Times on alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was at least partially refuted by Comey. He asserted that “in the main” a February story about alleged contacts between Trump lieutenants and Russian government officials was not true. Hours later, the New York Times reported Comey’s comments, but largely stood by their original story.

From my 23 years as a reporter at The Washington Post, I learned from journalism’s giants that bias must be guarded against with vigilance. Legendary Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee grilled reporters when major stories were based, as the CNN and Times stories were, on anonymous sources. Time and time again, Bradlee emphasized the importance of “getting it right,” a need that is heightened when nameless sources are used.

The pressure on reporters and columnists to publish stories that grab headlines and attention often causes them to overreach. This is what Bradlee’s successor as Editor, Len Downie dubbed “the bias in favor of The Story,” something Downie pushed editors to be aware of, and guard against.

This doesn’t mean that anonymous sources should not be used.

Frequently, cultivating sources that don’t want their names revealed is the only way for journalists to report important news and insights. In fact, the biggest journalism story of the last century, The Washington Post’s pursuit of Watergate—which led to the resignation of President Nixon in 1973—was based on an anonymous source known as “Deep Throat,” who was cultivated in part by my mentor, Bob Woodward.

Nevertheless, the darkest day in Washington Post history occurred just eight years later in 1981 when the newspaper was forced to give back a Pulitzer Prize it won for stories about a six-year-old heroin addict named Little Jimmy. Two of the best in the business, Bob Woodward and Ben Bradlee, oversaw that coverage as editors, but reporter Janet Cooke duped both of them into believing a tale she had made up completely—and which prompted a massive police search for the non-existent boy.

On the day The Post won the Pulitzer, Cooke admitted she had fabricated the story and Bradlee, for his part, commissioned a major independent investigation into The Post newsroom to determine what went wrong and how it could be prevented in the future. Safeguards were adopted, and nothing else like it has since occurred at the newspaper.

Bradlee once told me, “We don’t write the truth. We write what people tell us.” Having said that, he demanded that stories meet a high standard for credibility and guarded the newspaper’s reputation for accuracy zealously.

There are a number of important takeaways from today’s Comey hearings, but one of the big ones elaborated on a point I hit yesterday in discussing Comey’s prepared statement: Trump was never under FBI investigation during the time that Comey headed the FBI, Comey personally told Trump that three times, and Trump grew increasingly frustrated that Comey wouldn’t clear the “cloud” over his head by publicly saying so. Indeed, Trump’s explanation to Lester Holt of why he fired Comey is entirely consistent with this.

But with Comey’s repeated and emphatic testimony that Trump was not under investigation, we have some new revisionist history: wildly backtracking liberals and Democrats claiming that nobody ever said Trump was under FBI investigation. And this is simply untrue. Here’s a sampling of what Democrats, liberals, and the media were saying back when Comey was privately reassuring Trump that he wasn’t under investigation:

Salon, January 20 headline: “The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia” — first line, “The FBI is leading a multi-agency investigation into possible links between Russian officials and President-elect Donald Trump.”

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, March 20: “The FBI is investigating a sitting President. Been a long time since that happened.”

The FBI is investigating a sitting President. Been a long time since that happened.
— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) March 20, 2017

The New York Times March 20 headline: “F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms”

The Times: “Mr. Comey placed a criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House and said officers would pursue it ‘no matter how long that takes.’”

Russell Berman in The Atlantic, March 20 headline: “It’s Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump’s Links to Russia”

Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, March 20: “we have a president under FBI investigation. How do you like that?” In an article headlined “Let’s Revisit All Those Times Trump Surrogates Said You Can’t Elect Someone Under FBI Investigation.”

Jack Moore in GQ, March 20 headline: “James Comey Confirms the FBI Is Investigating Trump’s Russian Connections”

Limelite, a blogger at DailyKos, March 20 headline: “Let’s Not Mince Words: Trump & Cohort Under FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.” Article: “The truth is that the facts are Director Comey is heading a criminal investigation into the past and present illegal activities of Donald Trump and a number of his former and present advisors whom he gathered to his 2016 presidential campaign. Let us be clear. Very clear. The FBI is not investigating of the basis of conspiracy theories, rumors, political axes to grind, or Russian propaganda. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation based on factual evidence.”

LeftOfCenter, a blogger at Crooks & Liars, March 21 headline, quoting MSBNC’s Joe Scarborough: “On Election Day, Trump Was The ONLY ONE Under FBI Investigation, Not Hillary Clinton” More from Scarborough: “The FBI reports that there’s an investigation between the White House, the President’s campaign and collusion with Russia . . . ”

Toobin is, to put it mildly…..a …..colossal jerk…..rsk

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst and staff writer for The New Yorker, was fired up over former FBI James Comey’s prepared remarks on Wednesday, calling President Donald Trump’s purported maneuvers an “obstruction of justice.”

During his appearance on CNN, Toobin blasted Trump and said, “There is a criminal investigation going on of one of the President’s top associates, his former national security adviser, one of the most — handful of most important people in the government. He gets fired. He’s under criminal investigation and the President brings in the FBI director and says, ‘Please stop your investigation.’ If that isn’t obstruction of justice, I don’t know what is.”

On Trump’s firing of Comey in May

Toobin: Comey firing a ‘grotesque abuse of power’ “This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies, that when there is an investigation that reaches near the President of the United States, or the leader of a non-democracy, they fire the people who are in charge of the investigation.”

CNN was forced to issue a correction Tuesday, after former FBI director James Comey’s written testimony contradicted its damaging report about the president.

“The most trusted name in news” had reported that Comey was expected on Thursday to dispute President Trump’s claims that Comey had told him on multiple occasions that he was not under investigation.

In his termination letter to Comey on May 10, Trump mentioned that the Comey had told him three times that he was not under investigation: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” the president wrote.

But in the former FBI director’s written testimony for his opening statement in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey confirmed that on three separate occasions he had told Trump that he was not under investigation for collusion with Russia.

Via The Hill:

The report, titled “Comey expected to refute Trump,” was based on unnamed sources and said Comey’s conversations with the president “were much more nuanced,” and that Trump drew the wrong conclusion.

The story was complied by four CNN journalists, including Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus.

Borger reiterated the report’s claims in an appearance on CNN Tuesday.

“Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be,” said Borger, the network’s chief political analyst. “He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.”

Comey’s opening statement did, however, mention asserting that Trump was not under investigation, however the statement failed to specify whether Trump was not under criminal investigation, but only said there was no counter-intelligence investigation on the president.

CNN’s sources were spectacularly wrong.