Networks: 2,202 Minutes on Russia Scandal, Zero for No Collusion Report

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/02/14/networks-2202-minutes-russia-scandal-zero-no-collusion-report

“It’s been two days since NBC’s exclusive reporting that the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no material evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and as of yet none of the three major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) have given it even a single second of coverage in their evening newscasts. Considering these networks have given the Russia probe a massive 2,202 minutes of airtime, their silence on this major development is deafening.”

23 thoughts on “Networks: 2,202 Minutes on Russia Scandal, Zero for No Collusion Report

  1. Allegations of media bias have become almost cliche, but evidence of the illusion that media dilligently serves the public interest remains startling.

    The Russian collusion narrative is collapsing into hoax. So is the narrative in which the president supposedly is unfit to hold the office. Next to go (a la Scott Adams) will be the Charlotsville hoax in which the president is said to have sided with the neo Nazis. And for that we have a quotation by Trump himself which someone dug up and Tweeted around:

    The demise of beloved hoaxes seems to me to be creating a news vacuum. Let’s hope nothing ugly rushes in to fill it.

    Like

    1. “You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

      The “Unite the Right” rally that sparked the violence in Charlottesville featured several leading names in the white-nationalist alt-right movement, and also attracted people displaying Nazi symbols. As they walked down the street, the white-nationalist protesters chanted “blood and soil,” the English translation of a Nazi slogan. One of the men seen marching with the fascist group American Vanguard, James A. Fields, is charged with deliberately ramming a car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer.”

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

      Why on earth would very fine people march in the same protest with those people chanting Nazi slogans and anti-Semitic phrases? Did they really believe their Confederate ancestors would be honored by marching with those neo-Nazis whose idols and ideals cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans protecting our freedom from such trash?

      There was no hoax that Trump miscast the marchers. What might be debated is if he was sympathetic to white supremacists or just clueless.

      Or both.

      IMHO

      Like

      1. RE: “There was no hoax that Trump miscast the marchers.”

        What part of “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally” do you refuse to believe?

        Like

        1. That there were any fine people among them. That was Trump’s contention.

          Or put another way, that the marchers were a mix of Nazis and fine Americans.

          Like

          1. Do you really believe that every single person who wanted to keep the statues was a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist?

            Like

          2. Do I really believe that every single person who wanted to keep the statues was a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist?

            In general, no. If they marched with the Nazis, then yes. Because then the agenda was not just respect for Lee, but also white supremacy. Several hundred marchers chanting “Jews will not replace us” or “blood and soil” were not referring to Civil War battles.

            Or to put it another way you can’t profess to be a pyromaniac to explain your participation in cross burnings.

            Like

          3. RE: “That there were any fine people among them. That was Trump’s contention.”

            That there were fine people on both sides of the monument debate was Trump’s contention, which you now have both agreed and disagreed with.

            Like

        2. “…which you now have both agreed and disagreed with.”

          Hardly. I was pretty clear that there were no fine people on the Nazi side.

          “That was Trump’s contention.” “…that the marchers were a mix of Nazis and fine Americans.”

          “Do I really believe that every single person who wanted to keep the statues was a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist?

          In general, no. If they marched with the Nazis, then yes.”

          To be clear, in case my wording was not, Trump said there were fine people on both sides and I said there were none marching with the Nazis. If they were fine people, they would not have been marching with Nazis.

          I hope this is clear.

          Like

          1. It is clear that you believe one thing Trump has said and don’t believe another. You believe Trump when he says a fine American can be pro-monument without being a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist. You don’t believe Trump when he says “fine American” applies to pro-monument people who are not neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

            I find the two positions irreconcilable, which is characteristic of irrational belief.

            Like

          2. You are not reading what I said. You are reading what you thought fits your narrative. Simply put whoever marched with the nazis were trash.

            Good night

            Like

        3. “Very fine people” do not march with neo-Nazis and white nationalists. At first sign of a swastika or racist chant or anti-Semitic slogan “very fine people” leave the march. And, as a reminder, it took Trump DAYS to condemn the neo-Nazi murder of an innocent young woman.

          And, if you really and truly believe that the Russian collusion story is a hoax then you are clearly immune to evidence which, on this subject, is already overwhelming with more to come.

          Like

  2. Apparently there is disagreement among Democrats and Republicans on the committee as to context according to NBC’s report.

    “On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, “There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

    Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

    It doesn’t sound like a major scoop to me. “So far” is the operative phrase.

    Besides the Mueller investigation is the key one.

    IMHO

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The story is a non-story since the claims of exoneration are palpably ridiculous. The Trump campaign obviously conspired with Russians. There is enough in the public record to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The only missing piece that is not yet known by the public is Trump’s personal role. He either lead his campaign into this treachery or he is a clueless dupe. Either possibility is disqualifying for the office he holds and may seek again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: The Trump campaign obviously conspired with Russians. There is enough in the public record to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.”

      If you have any evidence to support an allegation of criminal conspiracy, let’s see it. Otherwise, as usual, you are just blowing smoke.

      Like

      1. If I have any evidence?

        You and other Trump enthusiasts are immune to evidence. That is why you pretend there is none when just about every senior member of the Trump campaign is facing prison time for their activities with the Russians and their lies about what they did. And what is your evidence for the lack of evidence? The lies of a pathological liar, Donald Trump. Sad.

        https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

        Again, the possibilities are limited. Either Trump lead all of this proven criminal behavior or he was duped by his underlings. There is no third possibility.

        Like

        1. There being so much evidence of criminal conspiracy, surely there is something specific you can cite. The reason you cite nothing is there is none.

          Like

          1. I have provided a a link to an article listing indictments, convictions and plea bargains. As noted above, evidence is (and has to be) meaningless to Trump enthusiasts.

            Like

          2. You have provided a link listing indictments, convictions and plea bargains, none of which is evidence to support an allegation of criminal conspiracy. If any of the listed were, you could say how, but you can’t.

            Like

          3. I will be generous and assume you do not know what a criminal conspiracy consists of. In a nutshell when two or more people conspire to break the law a criminal conspiracy exists.

            When Russian agents called a meeting to offer dirt from a foreign government on the Clinton campaign and the senior leaders of the Trump campaign took the meeting and later lied about it, THAT is a criminal conspiracy.

            When a senior leader of the Trump campaign provided polling data to a foreign operatives to better enable them to illegally influence our election THAT too is a criminal conspiracy.

            There are many, many more such conspiracies already proven by convictions and plea bargains.

            Like

    2. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.” Coulter

      Considering that Coulter’s standing among conservatives is as a brilliant judge of character and mental capacity(“Liberalism Is On the Spectrum Of Mental Illness”) then perhaps clueless dupe might be the president’s best defense.

      Better put her back on “the reservation” Mr. President.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Little other than a bit of humor.

          Yet she did write a whole book praising Trump almost to the point of deification: “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!”.

          And the question arose whether Trump was complicit or a clueless dupe.

          And she turned on him pretty severely. So I am giving our president the benefit of the doubt with regards to the story about collusion or no collusion and his direct involvement.

          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