Pilot: Mueller disputes accuracy of BuzzFeed report on Trump, Cohen


Mueller is signaling that his final report will not support impeachment. The Pilot’s AP piece works overtime spinning the story to suggest, it will.

17 thoughts on “Pilot: Mueller disputes accuracy of BuzzFeed report on Trump, Cohen

  1. The AP item is 850 words long. By my count roughly 60% of those words either:

    • Present or defend Buzzfeed’s claims as likely to be true, or
    • Promote the perception that impeachment will necessarily occur.

    Even if the word count doesn’t suggest bias, the impeachment angle is overblown. It would merit only a single sentence in a “just the facts, ma’am” style of report. Something like” “If proved, the Buzzfeed allegations could become a factor in impeachment proceedings that some Democrats in the House of Representatives have proposed.”

    As it is, the AP piece is a vehicle for promoting the anti-Trump impeachment narrative, reason enough for Mueller to throw a wet blanket on expectations.


    1. Pure wishful thinking. Mueller signals NOTHING about his final report by setting the record straight on the particulars of one of the more minor crimes committed by these gangsters.

      There is already far more than enough in the way of impeachable offenses with or without the Mueller report. Trump continues in office only because the GOP puts party over country. They proved that yet again when they did Putin’s bidding and lifted sanctions on the Russian oligarch known to have been active in putting Trump in the White House.

      But, then, what can we really expect. After all, they are Republicans and they have been doing exactly that for decades . . .


      Liked by 1 person

      1. _RE: “Pure wishful thinking…”

        I don’t think so. The SC office clearly had a reason to dispute the Buzzfeed article. If it’s true the Mueller report will be “anticlimactic” as ABC News has reported, then it is a reasonable inference that the SC office issued its press release to warn the public off from impeachment hysteria. Mueller has put a lot of work into his investigation at taxpayer expense. He has both a legitimate interest and a responsibility to see the final report judged for what it is, on its own merits, when it comes out, not in light of unreasonable expectations.

        In contrast, to claim Mueller’s press release signals “NOTHING about his final report” is obviously absurd, for the very reason that we don’t know what’s in the report itself.


        1. There is nothing reasonable about your conclusion that correcting this error was foreshadowing a non-event report. THAT is clearly just wishful thinking.

          With so many people already indicted, convicted and/or confessed around Trump there are only two possible inferences.

          Occam’s Razor says that the leader was the leader so conclusion one is that Trump was the leader of these conspiracies.
          The only other possible inference is that Trump is a total incompetent who surrounded himself with criminals and was unable to exercise any control over their criminal behavior. Given Trump’s personality the idea that he would demand or be able to stay out of the loop is very, very far-fetched.

          The report – whatever is in it – we be the last nail in Trump’s political coffin. He will not be the next President or even the next GOP nominee. He will probably develop “health reasons” and resign.


        1. It makes no claim to the veracity of the Buzzfeed News article. In fact it states that no other major media has corroborated the story.

          Nor does it promote impeachment as inevitable.

          These were your major complaints about AP according to your first post.

          If you go to the WaPo article in the Pilot, comments are turned on. Of course all the comments, except mine were just more of the same that the press always lies.

          (And the president doesn’t?)

          Which is kind of interesting since that means the article questioning Buzzfeed’s story must be a lie too.

          Makes one wonder if those folks have a clue what it would be like to live in a country like Russia or even Turkey where press freedom is non-existent because the media was critical of the leadership.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Commenting is turned off for the AP piece. This is consistent with The Pilot’s stated practice to not open syndicated material for comment. We’ve seen, however, that The Pilot deviates from its own rule sometimes. It appears, then, that The Pilot has no use for audience analysis on the topic at hand. Maybe the AP has already compiled the audience analysis metrics for this particular story, or maybe the story itself is intended as a “one-way-street communication” to Pilot readers.


    1. Interestingly, a WaPo item in today’s paper addresses the same general topic as the AP item, but unlike the AP piece the WaPo piece has comments turned on.

      The pieces are different. AP reports on the event of the Buzzfeed story and the Robert Mueller response. WaPo explores the topic of press credibility, which the events of the Buzzfeed story/Mueller response inspires.

      Assuming The Pilot uses the commenting feature to collect audience analysis data, the WaPo comments may be of interest to The Pilot in gauging its own credibility as a press agent. At least, The Pilot might be interested in knowing how pro- or anti-press its own readership is.

      As I jot up these notes, there are 14 comments: 9 are anti-press; 2 are pro-press; 3 are unrelated to the specific topic of press credibility.


      1. Of course those comments against the press are knee jerk “dittos” of “fake news” rabble noise. And one is a brilliant assessment of press accountability…or as brilliant as can be with 300 characters.




        Liked by 1 person

      2. There’s another question The Pilot might be testing.

        The AP item and several others had already reported on the controversy, making the WaPo’s analysis of the story with respect to press credibility somewhat gratuitous, or less newsworthy. However, the WaPo piece paints a self-serving picture of news media doing its best under difficult conditions to tell the truth. In that case, the audience analysis would measure the success of the effort.

        By the look of the comments (now 10 anti-press, 2 pro-press, out of 24), the effort is a failure.


      1. You might try to lighten up just a tiny bit. I do like to be a bit irreverent at times. But I am sure you know that by now.

        Most of those comments at the Pilot were trolls. IMHO of course.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s