So it's the intention that counts not the result which is always misinformation. And who exactly is the expert on media intentions so that we can separate fake from "real" news?
And how you know the motivation of the intelligence community? Because they haven't intentionally lied before to the American public?
So if the intelligence community is not to be trusted, ever. Are you just assuming everything they say is bullshit? How does this rather simplistic approach to vetting our intelligence agencies work exactly?
So say if the CIA comes out and says this 35 page dossier is bullshit. Or whatever label indicates the highest level of certainty from them. How do you deal with that?.. Just to clarify, my point had nothing to do with how much or how little I trust intelligence agencies.
This isn't difficult, I still wouldn't trust them. It's not as if I give a shit about Trump anyway. CIA was, is and will be serving the ruling class and especially the military industrial complex which currently feels threatened which is why it's lashing out. Not because Trump is such a rebel but just because they can't control him, yet. I can't even begin to imagine the tactics they'd use against someone like Sanders who actually threatens them.
As to your "fake news" point. It's "all of the above and more." Basically, you know, look for context and evidence of the charge. Now for starters Buzzfeed - agree with their decision or not - published the dossier after CNN broke its existence(so did Slate eventually and a few others). A dossier that had been circulating for months apparently. CNN chose to do so because their sources claimed the president had been briefed and through whatever alchemy they make decisions, they went ahead with reporting the story. There is so far no evidence CNN knew it was fake and deliberately tried to mis-inform. And Buzzfeed, even though I suspect motivations that were likely less then pure, and kinda hate them, its hard to label this as unequivocally proof of them propagating fake news.
The only reason they didn't stoop so low before was because they believed they own bullshit and fake polls that Clinton's chances of winning were 99.999999% (I apologize in advance in case I forgot a couple of 9s). Now that Trump is elected they are and you can bet your ass they'll do the same and much worse in the 2020 elections. This is how the established system reacts when it's disrupted by democracy and a pissed off desperate nation that is willing to vote for a clown just to screw with the status quo.
1.) there is no evidence it was the intelligent community that leaked this. Which puts a hole in that narrative without confirmation. And who is this intelligence community you speak of? The FBI that broke precedent and politicized the election to benefit Trump? Or the CIA that supposedly has it out for him? But also just extended an olive branch and stated allegiance publicly despite some unqualified attacks on the president elects part? I could spend hours criticizing the various intelligent organizations, but this broadbrushing act you default to really poisons my ability to take you seriously.
2.) you are dwelling into straight conspiratory nonsense with your fake news rationalization. The news media is not a monolith. One organization broke this story while many others sat on it for months. That alone speaks to the opposite of what you are asserting. In an age where journalistic ethics are seemingly waning, where supposedly the "media" in your mind is shook and lashing out, they sat on the juiciest allegation against Trump because they couldn't verify it.
Honestly though, I'm not interested in another day and another round of your exhausting
schtick.
