CNN Reports Fake News Once Again - No Biggie?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (121 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
    Sharlee01posted 5 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14673143.jpg
    CNN’s Jim Sciutto is in hot water for an anti-Trump report which the CIA and the White House condemned and deny.

    Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information.   CNN reported that the CIA pulled a source from Russia in 2017, in part out of concern that the Trump administration had mishandled classified intelligence, and could put the spy in danger.

    The CIA came quickly with a statement, calling the story "misguided" and simply false".

    CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement.
    "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false.”

    The CIA rebuke came as The New York Times and the Washington Post published a bombshell pieces late in the evening last night, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting as false.  According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source in question from Russia" — weeks before Trump even took office. Stating, the report has no truth to it."  Yet today CNN downplays the report and has not offered a retraction.

    Sciutto report --  https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics … index.html

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jim-sciutto-cia

    It appears the story was not vetted properly. Yet this story reached the ears of millions of CNN viewers.
    It well appears CNN has gone past just twisting verbiage, and is now just making it up as they go...

    Does this type of media reporting qualify as propaganda?

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Sharlee, I am not quite ready to agree with your premise, yet. But, there does seem to be room for doubt.

      I took a look around and all I could find were sources repeating the gist of the CNN, NYT, and Wapo articles. But it is early days yet. We will see what develops.

      Since, whether the facts are correct or not, the Fox article used words, (verbiage in your world),  and adjectives that displayed an obvious bias, and because they were mentioned as sources discrediting the CNN report, here are a couple more relative links:

      New York Times: C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to U.S. for Decades

      Washington Post: U.S. got key asset out of Russia following election hacking

      It seems the key criticism against CNN's reported conclusion that the extraction was a result of Pres. Trump's behavior is the "fact(?)" that the first extraction effort was made in 2016 - long before Pres. Trump's time.

      Another criticism is the very unusual CIA criticism of a news outlet's reporting. But, I think this point is a bit squishy. Maybe it's true or maybe it occurred because the truth hit close to home. *shrug

      Either way, it is an interesting topic, and I think CNN's credibility, (yes, some folks view them as a credible source), is on the line. I don't think this will be allowed to just fade away.

      CNN has doubled-down in support of the report, so now everyone, (WaPo, NYT, etc.), has skin in the game.

      As they say . . . Stay tuned, don't touch that dial.

      GA

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        GA, I  appreciate your cautious view.   I am glad you made mention of the difficulty in finding information on this story.  The three mentioned sources were the only ones I could find, and all had very similar content. And yes Fox's coverage of the story leans bias. Although, Fox quote sources, CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell, as well as White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham. CNN lacks sources.

        As of late, I have witnessed many media reports that sound an alarm and quickly disappeared.   Leaving me to wonder how much truth was in the report or how little? I also agree this story may not go away as quickly as CNN may hope it will.  Fox is just sinking their teeth into it and has not shaken it yet.

        I find it interesting CNN is still running with it, and I find this odd?  I think with the CIA claiming the report untrue it looks bad for CNN at this point. Although in today hysterical political climate media networks are not being held to previous standards of good journalism.

        You can bet I will be flipping channels this evening...

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        GA,  As I stated, no biggie... CNN  has moved on to concentrate on 9/11. Pointing out how President Trump is handling the tragedy of 9/11 poorly.  Last night CNN concentrated on Pointing out Trump's comments in regard to his feelings on his lagging polls.
         
        Once again CNN airs a false story, that I might add may have consequences for the person that was removed from his assignment in Russia. Plus, the story in question was viewed by many, and today many believe the story to be true. And CNN drops it like a cold potato. No retraction, no apology. Just moves on to a new petty story about the president. Fox covered the story with good detail, quoting actual sources. This is one reason more viewers turn to Fox.

        So, propaganda or not?

      3. Ewent profile image82
        Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The Trump I grew up with always lies and then back pedals. He uses people but not until he has all the dirt on them just in case they do not bow down to his every need.

        Why do you think Bannon is a nothing burger now? Or why he suddenly changed his tune about Michael Cohen?

        Bias is what he feasts on. I want to know who this "Trump BASE" is that everyone is so afraid of. What are their names? Why hide behind false narratives and Trump propaganda?

        This is no longer about partisan ideology. It is about the future of our country and our democracy. I defy Sharlee or anyone who claims to be an American to try and defend the obstruction of justice and abuse of power they so freely allow Trump but for 8 solid years, refused to allow Obama an inch of freedom.,

        How is that NOT bias?

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          It is bias ewent, on both sides.

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            True GA, the left despises corruption and lies, the right doesn't care about such trivial things.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              'you Americans, you so funny . . . '

              GA

            2. Ewent profile image82
              Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              When you allow a foreign leader to interfere in our government, you are breaking the law. What about that do you not get?

              I am not fooled by why Trump is so far up Russia's butt. He went nearly broke by the late 90s and defaulted on 6 bank loans. He needed money desperately to pay off the $22 million he owed. He is not well known for paying what he owes. We call that Grifting.

              Trump owes Russian oligarchs in his never ending business deals that resemble the kind of deals John Gotti and other mobsters have made and gone to prison for.

              So he so obviously is terrified that it will go public as to the billions he owes Russian oligarchs. At least 5 of whom I can name easily and all are part of Putin's top echelon of power.,

              How stupid is the left not to realize that by handing over the Ukraine to Putin, it returns to being The Soviet Union Putin so lusts for and it also wipes out Trump's debts to Russian oligarchs,

              Don't bother to deny. There are 4400 former Trump employees and dozens of contractors Trump never paid right here in NJ. Is that the kind of man you want in the White House? A criminal mobster who makes offers they can't refuse under threat of using our tax dollars to ransom his winning in 2020?

            3. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Randy, yes it is apparent the left care about corruption and lies. However, they just don't slow down to see what's true. The right does care about corruption and lies but wants to make sure the corruption happened, and the lies really lie. It comes down to one jumps the gun one just is not willing to unless they see facts. Jut not nice to condemn without proof. It leaves the door open for anyone to be accused of anything.

              The media retracts storys almost daily, our congress condemns with hearsay evidence without taking the time to really investigate before leaving the impression crimes have been committed. We the people are doing much the same... Just not acceptable.

          2. Ewent profile image82
            Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            No it is not. Are Dems the only ones who represent us who are willing to address abuse of power? Are they the only ones who will address conflict of interest? Are they the only ones who will address obstruction of justice?

            It is bias to have representatives who see blatant abuse of the US Constitution?

            We have ALL the evidence the 2016 election was hacked to help Trump. It is now well documented. Who squashed it and shoved it under the rug but biased right wing control freaks?

            The left are not about to allow Trump to use our tax dollars as ransom to smear his political opponents to ensure a 2020 election win.

            In case you missed it, he has NO right to use our tax dollars for HIS re-election campaign. It is ILLEGAL. What is biased about that?

            Trump is playing a very dangerous game right now where anyone who dares call him to accountability is "biased?" Even when they swear an oath to tell the truth to judges? How is that bias?

            Sorry but if your version of bias allows a man so guilty that his only excuse for existence is to try and make others look as guilty as he is, then you need to rethink what bias really is.

            By your estimation of bias, it was bias of Guiliani when he was with the SDNY to dare to try and prosecute Gotti, Salerno and Giganti.

            Toilet paper is not biased. It is manufactured by liberals, righties, lefties and you need it and can't make it through life without it. Get a clue.

            This is not about politics. It is about preserving our democracy as the Founding Fathers created it.

            Get up the noses of the wrong Yankees and you get a Great Depression when we withdraw our tax dollars from federal funding that goes to 37 GOP states. That's not a clawback threat. It is already happening.

            We are not a Republican country. Give Trump another 4 years and he will demand the right to a 3rd term if there is anything left of government by then.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Don't hold back ewent, how do you really feel about Pres. Trump

              GA

              1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I think Trump is the greatest President in the history of this great nation, and will bring America to prominence and greatness never seen before, he will forever end the efforts of globalists to undermine the Constitution, and five years from now, when his second term comes to an end, I will happily vote for his daughter Ivanka, who will become the first woman President, and she will continue his glorious work!

                1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                  Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I couldn't possibly agree more. I'll go a step further though. These past few years have brought me to a complete decision. I shall never in my life vote for a Democrat. In fact, no matter what, I will vote against that party.

                  Thing is, I think that party will be gone soon. From its ashes, the bits and pieces of it which were ever worth having, will have to be reassembled into a decent center-left party.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this
                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "Thing is, I think that party will be gone soon."

                    I'm not sure I can agree with this - the virtually unlimited greed and willingness to take from others for what we want but don't want to pay for will likely continue and grow.  We are producing a whole generation (or more) of people that feel they are entitled to whatever they want at someone else's expense, simply because they exist and are alive.  That is what the party panders to, and the party continually works on growing the concept rather than insisting we are all responsible for ourselves.

                2. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Now I understand your fury and why you blasted Credence out of the blue with names such as fanatical, lunacy and hysterics.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    What do you mean?

                  2. Ewent profile image82
                    Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    You may be voting via an Attica Prison warden. That is where we in NJ and NY want him and that is where we will see to it he goes. It figures the wild west lawless Dodge City types think law is for others.

                3. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  What kind of half-hearted support is this Ken? What's all this defeatist talk about Trump's presidency ending five years from now? Trump will be supreme leader forever, sir! You are right about one thing though. After him, his children will continue his glorious reign. Then his grandchildren. Supreme Leader Trump's dynasty will be everlasting. I'm a little disappointed you show such lack of belief Ken.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    America may be ready for a dynasty.  Clinton tried it and Bush did it. 

                    The handwriting is on the wall.  We're going to have to remodel the White House into an aquarium for Spongebob and his kinfolk from the ocean.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Oh come on now, open your mind...
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AkbfmMNVP8

                  3. Ewent profile image82
                    Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Dream on teenage king. Not going to happen. We have LAWS in this country. If you don't obey the laws, you go to jail. That IS where Trump is going.

                    When he threatens a whistleblower by saying, "It's too bad we don't do what we used to do to spies,..." The Whistleblower is NOT a spy.

                    That Maggot has the gall to use a private coded server intended ONLY for national security purposes to hide his phone calls? And you don't think that's treason?

                    He doesn't have the authority to silence anyone in this country. As for Iskunka, Don Jr and Tricky Ricky, they go down with him, Barr, Pence, Pompeo and Ratface Guiliani.

                    Guiliani is Trump's personal lawyer. Not an appointed US diplomat. He had NO business talking to the Ukranian president.

                    Time for you wild west cowboys to face the fact that WE in the 13 donor states WILL demand our elected officials cut off ALL of that 37 moocher state funding you live on. Who cares if your traitor states go belly up?

                4. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I have to agree. President Trump is a kind of phenomenon that has left some just not believing what he has been able to do, all while dodging bullets. Many just are not willing to accept his job performance. I have a hard time comprehending why the hell those that preceded him did so little?

    2. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Sorry, off-topic I know, but let me get this straight:

      We had a credible source inside the Kremlin who told us Putin "orchestrated" the operation to sabotage the Presidential election, and that Putin "affirmatively favored Donald J. Trump’s election and personally ordered the hacking of the Democratic National Committee".

      And Trump was briefed on the Russian interference "including material from the prized informant" two weeks before his inauguration.

      So Trump new intelligence that Russia interfered with the election came from within the Kremlin itself, yet he still chose to repeatedly cast doubt on that fact, including a statement in Helsinki in which he effectively said he believed Putin more than his own intelligence agencies, before later backtracking.

      I don't mean to interrupt the CNN-bashing, but surely that's the key takeaway here, is it not?

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        No, relative to the thread topic, that is not the key take-away. It may be a valid "take-away" in Russian interference discussions, but it doesn't have much to do with this thread.

        However, it would be a refreshing take-away to resurrect the issue for some of those doubters in the Russian interference threads.

        Sort of an Aha! Told you so!

        GA

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          "No, relative to the thread topic, that is not the key take-away"

          I agree, relative to the thread topic, which is why I said "Sorry, off-topic I know . . ."

          I do find the question being asked in this thread a bit ridiculous though.

          Let's assume, for sake of argument, CNN is wrong on the specific detail in question. The thread author wants to know if we think that means CNN is engaging in propaganda, apparently by deliberately mis-reporting things other news sources have already reported on in a way that is contradictory (evidently CNN is not very good at propaganda).

          Ok that's one possibility. Another is that the (currently assumed) error in reporting is, on balance, likely the result of conflicting information from sources, human error, plain old sloppy journalism, a failure of editorial process, or some other mundane issue that affects all new organizations. Most likely though it's a combination of a few of those things.

          So why has the thread author seemingly not considered that as a sensible, reasonable explanation?

          At this point, am I expected to ignore the fact that the author of this thread is a self-confessed Trump supporter, and that Trump has described CNN as "the enemy of the people"?

          Am I expected to ignore the fact that some people show a fanatical desire to further Trump's agenda, and this thread is very likely (wittingly or not) an example of that?

          Am I supposed to ignore all that GA, and treat this as a genuine question asked in good faith by someone who wants a meaningful discussion, even though 30 seconds of serious thought would allow a reasonable person to conclude what the most likely explanation is?

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "Ok that's one possibility. Another is that the (currently assumed) error in reporting is, on balance, likely the result of conflicting information from sources, human error, plain old sloppy journalism, a failure of editorial process, or some other mundane issue that affects all new organizations. Most likely though it's a combination of a few of those things."

            That is the thought I would go with. But, whether correctly understood or not, I took the OP to be an effort to show bias. That is a point I agree with, whether it is this story or another.

            It is still an "if," but if your noted reasons are correct, then the first question would be why? Why were the vetting and sourcing not up to par? If the reason is bias-driven, that might validate the point of the OP.

            Was it fake news? Propaganda? Those are personal determinations, but even the author noted the same point you did:

            "It appears the story was not vetted properly. Yet this story reached the ears of millions of CNN viewers."

            I think she has a point.

            I also think she made another good point, why haven't we heard more about this from CNN?  If the report is true, it is not a small matter.

            Are they comfortable with their reporting and don't see a need to further prove it, or would they rather it just be forgotten?

            GA

            1. Don W profile image81
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              There is currently no objective evidence that confirms CNN's reporting of this story is inaccurate; only conflicting reports from different news outlets. To be clear I'm not saying it is or is not, I'm saying the most we can reasonably say is that we currently don't know.

              Propaganda, as I understand it, means deliberately misleading people to further an agenda. If there was some objective evidence that CNN's reporting was incorrect (or if CNN admitted it was) that would not be sufficient evidence to reasonably claim it was an attempt to deliberately mislead people. I think the causes I outlined are the most likely, and they represent an occupational hazard for all news organizations, not just CNN.

              How many corrections/ retractions does CNN issue relative to other news organizations? What is the rate of corrections/ retractions per hours of content broadcast/ or words published for CNN compared to other news organizations?

              Even with this information, we could only conclude that CNN has a higher, similar, or lower rate of corrections etc. than other organizations. The reasons for those outcomes would remain speculation, absent additional evidence.

              So on the face of it, the question in the opening comment is loaded (it presupposes CNN's reporting is wrong - see thread title) but my familiarity with the author's comments in other threads, also leads me to believe the question itself is driven by pro-Trump bias rather than any objective evidence of fault on CNN's part, so I am even less inclined to take it seriously.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "There is currently no objective evidence that confirms CNN's reporting of this story is inaccurate; only conflicting reports from different news outlets. To be clear I'm not saying it is or is not, I'm saying the most we can reasonably say is that we currently don't know."

                Fact --- Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information.

                Fact ---not conjecture... You claim  "There is currently no objective evidence,"   CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement. CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply FALSE... I am I to believe you do not accept  Bramell's statement?  The CIA very rarely offers media any form of statement.  NN as of yet has not retracted the story, and they won't. This piece of fake news will be gobbled up by many. People that prefer to believe anything negative about the president. This false story will be regurgitated by many as factual time and time again. 

                In regards to CNN's record on retractions. They very rarely offer a retraction.  As I stated CNN report information with little vetting, millions hear the report and run with it. They have served their purpose, which could be seen as spreading propaganda.

                "So on the face of it, the question in the opening comment is loaded (it presupposes CNN's reporting is wrong - see thread title) but my familiarity with the author's comments in other threads, also leads me to believe the question itself is driven by pro-Trump bias rather than any objective evidence of fault on CNN's part, so I am even less inclined to take it seriously."

                I am pro-truth, and if I see a subject being skewed I do jump in a conversation and make an attempt to give an alternate opinion. I am straight forward, and try to respect others opinions when possible.  I don't dance around a subject, and ever ignore facts. In the

                I think my opening blurb provided the truth. I provided names of sources and quoted those sources. I am unsure of why you dismiss the CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell response to the CNN report. I am not sure why you find the title in some way loaded?  CNN reported a false unvetted story, and you have thoroughly proved my title relevant. You choose to ignore facts and blaming me for presenting a pro-Trump bias. I provided facts. And you dismissed thee facts as "NO BIGGIE"
                 
                CNN Reports Fake News Once Again - No Biggie?

                1. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information".

                  *sigh*

                  No it did not. It reported that someone directly involved in the discussion said that was the case:

                  "A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy".
                  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html

                  Do you have objective evidence demonstrating that CNN's source was not directly involved with the discussion, or that CNN misreported what its source said?

                  "CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement . . ."

                  The quote from the CIA does not help you. The CIA director of public affairs simply mis-characterizes the allegation as "CNN's narrative" in the same way you have in this thread:

                  "Asked for comment, Brittany Bramell, the CIA director of public affairs, told CNN: 'CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false...'"
                  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html

                  That's not "CNN's narrative". CNN is reporting an allegation made by one of its sources, not making the allegation. And that's not even the main story. The main story is the fact that the US extracted a top spy from inside Russia in 2017, as indicated by the headline of the story:

                  "US extracted a top spy from inside Russia in 2017".
                  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html

                  As part of that story it also reported the fact that a source "...directly involved in the discussions..." made an allegation about what contributed to the decision to extract an intelligence asset. You have no objective evidence that CNN's source did not make that allegation.

                  Also, the fact CNN asked the CIA for comment on the allegation, then directly quoted the CIA's emphatic denial of that allegation (which includes implicit criticism of CNN) is not the action of an organization deliberately trying to mislead, which makes the loaded question about CNN "propaganda" even more ridiculous.

                  If it turns out there was no source, or the source was misrepresented, or not directly involved in the relevant discussions as claimed, then calling CNN's reporting inaccurate would be fair criticism (though it still would not be evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead).

                  However, criticizing CNN because Fox News (which you linked to in the opening comment) and the administration, have falsely characterized the story as "CNN's narrative", is not fair criticism. It's just nonsense.

                  "In regards to CNN's record on retractions. They very rarely offer a retraction."

                  If you don't know the proportion of CNN news stories proven to be false, relative to other news organizations (and clearly you don't) then how do you know if CNN has a better or worse rate? Sure we can all speculate, but you don't know for sure do you. What exactly is your belief that CNN is worse based on, apart from the fact Trump said CNN is the "enemy of the people".

                  "I am pro-truth"

                  I'm sure you think you are. Nevertheless, the question you asked in the opening comment is loaded. It presuppose CNN's reporting is incorrect, which for reasons explained above has not been established.

                  Likewise, there is a pattern of behavior where Trump tries to discredit any
                  report critical of him or the administration. By presupposing CNN has falsely reported something against Trump, you are (wittingly or not) furthering that agenda. That is not "pro-truth".

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    We certainly have difference in opinion in regards to this story. I believe the CIA representative, and am not afraid to say CNN provides propaganda frequently.

                    I think you should check out the New York Times story as well as the Washington post before you continue on your crusade.

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/p … ussia.html

                    https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinion … ons-leaks/

                    "The extraordinary CIA rebuke came as The New York Times published a bombshell piece late in the evening, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting. According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia" — weeks before Trump even took office."

                    CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement. "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,"

                    Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."

                    he could not have been more clear...

                    I am not willing to waste any further energy on debating this subject. It's very clear we disagree. I follow facts, you follow maybes...

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I believe you do believe to interrupt this conversation, and as a rule, this is exactly what you do. However, you might note  there has been only one other than yourself comment.   You have a history of deflecting on any given subject you can't except or defend.

        I was not bashing CNN, I was simply giving an example of their poor unethical methods of promoting false information. Perhaps you should move on, this thread comes to close to disappointing you in regards to the truth about CNN and the way they distort the news. You might note the usual liberals that post here at HP have not commented you should adopt the same attitude. Ignore when a subject comes to close to busting your bubble.  Deflecting is just a way of saying --- " I just won't address the subject, because it rubs me the wrong way...

        Their ratings speak volumes...  They have dropped to  10.

        https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/july-20 … ay/409984/

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I am not surprised you deflect. I have become very accustomed to this form of conversation here on HP.

        I am not willing to debate the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election as well as many previous elections for many years. The Mueller report gave good proof of Russia's intentions. Not sure we need to revisit the subject?   I certainly do not in any respect dispute the fact Russia made an all-out attempt to interfere in the 2019 election. Mueller also stipulated no American was involved in any form of a plot with Russia to interfere in the election. I suggest you save your energy on any form of retort in regards to anything other than the subject of the thread. I have no intention of discussing any subject but the subject of the thread.

        I posted his thread to point out a serious problem with the way CNN has been dishonest in their reporting in regards to the president.

        In my opinion, this kind of journalism needs to be pointed out. Although It well appears the general public has taken notice due to the decrease in CNN's ratings.  CNN is now # 10 in media News Networks.

        https://nypost.com/2019/07/04/cnn-conti … time-slot/

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          No need to debate whether Putin interfered with the election. It's established that he did. My comment was about the fact that we now know Trump was aware a source inside the Kremlin told us Putin interfered with the election, but Trump still went out of his why to cast doubt on that fact. I'm interested to know how people will justify that.

          Moving back on topic though, I'm also interested to know why, for you, CNN is the key takeaway from this whole situation and not Trump's efforts to cast doubt on something he knew there was solid evidence for.

          I believe it's because you're a Trump supporter and take your cue about what to think from Fox News and Trump's own comments, and you are therefore biased against any person or organization you perceive (or are told) is anti-Trump.

          And I believe you think CNN is deliberately misleading people to further an agenda, even though you have no objective evidence of that. Instead, I think your belief is based on Trump's admonishment of CNN as the "enemy of the people" and nothing more.

          To be clear, I'm suggesting that the question you have asked in this thread is a loaded question and that you are (wittingly or unwittingly) contributing to Trump's attacks on the free press which ultimately only serves to silence Trump's critics.

    3. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Yep, no biggie. Only a Fox News overreaction to a minor event.

      If a credible source told CNN that the CIA is worried about Trump's big mouth, then of course the CIA will deny it.

      But then, we already know the CIA is worrried about Trump's big mouth.

      "A former CIA operative told Insider the evidence is "overwhelming" that Trump is a Russian asset, but another CIA and NSA veteran said it was more likely Trump was currying favor with Putin for future business deals."

      From Business Insider, a website launched by a former Reagan cabinet member.

      https://www.businessinsider.com/spies-r … set-2019-8

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Your resource article lacks names, only vague insults in regards to the president's deminer at the  G7. Not sure why you feel I would give this kind of rhetoric any thought? I prefer names and faces behind a quote. Just don't buy into that form of journalism anymore. Too much dishonesty afoot... As I am sure you noted I gave two sources both had names.

        I miner event, that had the CIA coming out to dispute the story? As I  pointed out the CIA very rarely makes any form of a press release. But, I do thank you for your opinion. As my title states, and you have helped to solidify ---  No Biggie

        The human thought process is a mystery, and always will be.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I especially agree with your last sentence. I am mystified by the thought process of Trump and his supporters.  wink

          Just teasing Sharlee...

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I think we have a good understanding of each other, and I am grateful for a bit of levity.  We certainly do have opposing opinions, but I would say we have something in common. We just don't give up on something we truely believe.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Well said, Sharlee. I agree with your entire comment.

    4. Ewent profile image82
      Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      And Trump's lie to the public that he didn't have a conversation with the Ukrainian president and no he is doing the So What? and admitted he did?

      Wake up. I am fed up with Trump malignants refusing to force him to be accountable for what he does.

      He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?

      Does the Maggot in Chief plan to go after Neil Bush who owns a bank that did business with foreign investors while GWB was president or his other brother Jeb who with Neil also owned a bank as Governor of FL while GWB was president?

      Read the First Amendment. CNN does an excellent job of reporting. Only Trump malignants can't stand the truth.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        "And Trump's lie to the public that he didn't have a conversation with the Ukrainian president and no he is doing the So What? and admitted he did?"

        I have not been able to locate any proof of this statement? Do you have a resource you quoted?

        "Wake up. I am fed up with Trump malignants refusing to force him to be accountable for what he does."

        Not sure you read my latest comment on the subject?  In my opinion, Trump needs to release the transcript of the call or calls in question to clarify the facts.

        "He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?"

        This is exactly what I mean about media reports that go unverified and left to start unnecessary fires... There is no evidence that Trump ever made such a claim in regards to cutting off funds to Ukraine. If you have a source I will be glad to review it.

        In fact,  there are claims from Trump aides have promoted news stories saying that, in 2016, then-Vice President Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if Ukraine's government did not dismiss its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This is once again a statement that as of yet has not been proven.

        "KIEV (Reuters) - Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko on Saturday denied suggestions U.S. President Donald Trump had put pressure on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy during a phone call in July."

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1W60HU

        "Read the First Amendment. CNN does an excellent job of reporting. Only Trump malignants can't stand the truth."  CNN ratings continue to plummet year after year.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … 432a736124

        https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/cnn- … fake-news/

        Not willing to get in the dirt with you making remarks about any group is repugnant to me... You know as groupthink.

        I will though look forward to your offering a link or two to support your comments.

        1. Ewent profile image82
          Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Wrong. Trump told the White House press he was considering withholding $250 million from the Ukrainian military.

          Now, down and dirty. Why is Trump even making such a threat given his love of Putin?

          You don't get to ignore what Trump said to the White House press on Sunday, 9/22, he admitted he discussed Biden with the Ukranian President.

          I find your ignorance of using our tax dollars to make threats to a foreign leader REPULSIVE and ILLEGAL.

          If you want to live in a world of denial, there's the door out of the US. You don't get to condone world class liar who has more indictments to his name than Biden has EVER had.

          All your response proves is your inability to admit the truth. Pathetic. Disgusting and SHAMEFUL. Just not on MY tax dollars.

          I live in NJ. Don't ever tell anyone who lives in NY or NJ who and what that maggot in the White House is.

          Iskunka has made more business deals while her DADDY is in the Oval Office. Sorry but you don't get to bash Biden and his son without admitting that Iskunka, Don Jr and Eric ALL have been doing business while their DADDY is in the White House.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

            The truth about withholding military aid to Ukraine. No, it is not illegal for the president to cut funds to any given country... Just a fact

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1VJ1T8

            Sept 12. 2019  -- Note To Putin: Trump Unleashes $400M For Ukrainian Military/I would think this would put your mind a rest in regards to Trump being Putin's puppet?  I realize facts are sometimes very hard to swallow.

            https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/not … -military/

            Your statement --- "He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?"

            This is an out and out fabrication. As I said you need to add a resource to such a claim.

            "I live in NJ. Don't ever tell anyone who lives in NY or NJ who and what that maggot in the White House is."

            Well, I am from Michigan, and if your memory serves you correctly it is one reason Trump won in 2016, and will again in 2020...  Can't remember when a Republican won the electoral in NY or NJ? Been a very long time...LOL

            As I said not willing to get in the mud with you. You are doing a great job at getting dirty though.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Yes Shar, you are indeed spotless!  lol

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Come on Randy don't be so mean. Yes, you do know I can get really nasty. But, I am making an attempt to be kinder... Not saying it's easy, but I have found out the energy one expends arguing can be put to better use. No, I am not spotless, but trying to clean up my act.

                I have also learned this forum is pretty much a gathering place for liberal minds. Perhaps it's just better not jump into a conversation due to not being of the liberal persuasion.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I do think you're rethinking your pro-Trump stance, Shar. If so, then good for you.  smile

    5. Ewent profile image82
      Ewentposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Trump FALSE lies and distortions are REAL propaganda. Wake up  and smell the coffee. We do not allow foreign leaders to influence our elections.

      How do you call yourself an American when you are willing to allow Trump to work for Putin? You know full well he withheld funding to the Ukraine FOR Putin. Who but Putin who has military troops fighting Ukrainian military to access the Ukraine to Russia has a vested interest in using  Trump for another 4 years?

      Biden did nothing wrong. And if his son doing business in the Ukraine was wrong, why not go after GWB's 2 brothers who owned banks and did business with foreign investors while he was president?

      And in the end all this partisan sheep bleating will make fools of all of you. Do you really think there are no witnesses who will testify on Biden's behalf in our allied countries? Do you really think that the only complaint is from a whistleblower?

      Your boy has lied so much that no one trusts him anymore. He claims he will disclose the phone call transcript of his call to Zelensky. Why should we believe he won't haul out his magic marker?

      He claims he will disclose the whistleblower's complaint. Again, ONLY AFTER his boys in the WH have "reviewed it." That is why he is being impeached. The law clearly states that he has NO right to refuse to allow Congress to see that complaint. But now, the whistleblower asked to speak to Congress. So no matter what that liar in chief puts out there, it will be heard straight from the person most involved.

      I see there are still no justifications for Ivanka Trump having an office in the White House where while her Daddy was in the Oval Office has signed off on dozens of foreign business deals.

      I see there are still no complaints that Republicans are knowingly allowing Trump to abuse his power when they barely allowed Obama to breathe.

      Why bother trying to defend what you know is reprehensible, repulsive and a potential to eliminate future elections and voting by ignoring that Trump used his power of his position to threaten, bribe and extort Zelensky using our tax dollars?

      If Republicans think our Dem states will continue to feed them more and more our tax dollars, they better be prepared for what's coming. Our states are tired of Republican states living off federal tax dollars they don't pay in equal amounts to Dem states.

      So now Dem states are clawing back what we hand to the Fed. Let these Red states hemmoragh for all we care. It is about time you learned you do not control us.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry,   We are at a pass and must agree to disagree. Your statement leads me to believe you are very bitter...    I am not wasting any energy on your comment. We could not be further apart in our opinions.  Have a nice day.

  2. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 months ago

    Does anyone take anything CNN says on any political subject (or any major news source) with a grain of salt anymore? The major networks are all biased,  all pushing an agenda.

    It's not news anymore.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, in my opinion, many do continue to trust what they hear in soundbites, and siliceous "Breaking News" reports.   And with our healthy social media, these news reports are like the old "fish stories" grow...   I think this is obvious, just consider how news reports are debated in great detail even here at HP.   And yes, it well appears the all major news networks show bias. 

      I guess your comment makes me a bit sad. To think we are willing to accept this form of journalism. Are we headed toward media that find it acceptable to push propaganda?  To push narratives that consist of little truth, only a political agenda? I appreciate your view, it is honest and very telling.

      Thanks for jumping in where not many have not dared to tread. LOL

    2. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      This.

      Cable News is nothing more than echo-chamber noise and gossip. At best.

  3. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 months ago

    lol If unverified claims are considered news that explains pretty much everything.

    1. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "If unverified claims are considered news that explains pretty much everything."

      In certain circumstances they are, and that has been the case for many years. "He said, she said" journalism is not new. Some people say it's lazy journalism, some think it reasonable when a claim can't be verified, but the claim itself is newsworthy or in the public interest. Either way, it's not something CNN invented.

      I think if a source, who is deemed to be reliable, and had direct involvement in discussions surrounding these events, claimed that one of the contributing factors was concern about the president's lax approach towards national security, then that claim is certainly newsworthy, even if the nature of the allegation (discussions about a clandestine intelligence operation) means objective evidence will be hard to obtain.

      If the source described by CNN exists, is reliable, and made the claim CNN reported, then I think it would have been remiss of CNN not to publish that claim. The fact it sought comment from the agency in question, and published it's absolute denial, satisfies me that CNN's reporting is not at fault here (assuming there are no other factors I'm not aware of).

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        With CNNs track record I get why they did it.

        If news is just make an outrageous claim and then say credible sources say it is outrageous  it isn't news.  It's bs.

        Part of verifying and fact checking is to throw out the trash before final copy.

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          "If news is just make an outrageous claim and then say credible sources say it is outrageous it isn't news. It's bs."

          Again, CNN reported the claim. It did not make the claim. Neither did it describe the claim as "outrageous". It reported it, along with the response from the relevant agency. And regardless of what you think of quoting anonymous sources, that practice is not unique to CNN. It is standard practice across the industry.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            It isn't news,then. It's gossip.

            1. Don W profile image81
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Call it what you want. The point is, it's not unique to CNN, which is the organization this thread is about. It's common industry practice.

              Much of Woodward and Bernstein's early reporting on Watergate was attributed to anonymous sources. By your standard those articles should not have been published, on the grounds that they were "gossip". Thankfully news industry standards are not based your opinion.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Woodward and Bernstein functioned in a different time, with purer beliefs of finding the real truth, without the taint of ingrained bias by the upper echelons of the organization with a goal of creating a unified narrative to sway the public toward a specific political agenda. They didn't run to press with the first statement by an anonymous source. They actually had to pass a bar of credibility. Today, like that story we are referencing, you find a statement that suits your narrative and you run with it; without corroboration or evidence. That was journalism. Not the 'we are pundits masquerading as journalists'
                scenario we are faced with today.

                I will say though, I have fallen into the same trap as many. Assuming the American public is too stupid to see through the ignorance. That isn't fair to the average citizen. You may fall for it, but that is a choice you've made. You dislike the president so need an echo chamber for that prejudice. CNN is just a part of your echo chamber.

                1. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Quoting an anonymous source is either reasonable or it isn't. Either way, it means the same now as it did in 1972 unless the definitions of "quote", "anonymous" and "source" have changed, which they have not.

                  And this is about the decision to quote anonymous sources when corroboration is not possible. If corroboration is possible, then that's something different.

                  As recently as last year Woodward defended quoting anonymous sources, saying, "You won't get the straight story from someone if you do it on the record...You will get a press release version of events." He also said that without anonymous sources "...we wouldn't have got the most important stories about what Watergate was about."
                  https://www.businessinsider.com/why-bob … S&IR=T

                  Thank goodness of "gossip".

                  And do you know who CNN's source is? If not, on what grounds do you imply they lack credibility?

                  And again, none of this changes the fact that quoting anonymous sources is an industry wide practice. It's not unique to CNN.The only thing that seems unique is the fact that Trump acolytes don't like CNN, apparently because it refuses to swallow White House lies, AKA propaganda.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Woodward and Bernstein put their faith into a source that had concrete information, and they knew they could trust this information due to the fact it came from the Deputy Director of the FBI. No, their source did not come out until 30 years later.   

                "Throughout the 1972 campaign season, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by an anonymous source they referred to as “Deep Throat,” who, only some 30 years later, was revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr." They also were able to vet information as it was given.

                CNN could have request a statement from the CIA before they released the story, not after they broke it. They don't vet stories well.

                1. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  This CNN journalist too has put his faith into a source he believes has concrete information. He too believes he can trust the information due to the fact it came from a (presumably) reliable source.

                  So far there has been no objective evidence that demonstrates that information to be untrue (an official statement from the CIA is not objective evidence). So will we have are different statements from different people.

                  You have no idea who CNN's source is. No idea how reliable the source is. No idea which statement is true.

                  You are just assuming the allegation is untrue, and I think that's because you are a Trump supporter.

                  What makes you believe the CIA was not asked for comment before the story was released? The report clearly quotes a statement from the CIA. Do you have reason to think that was inserted after the fact? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "This CNN journalist too has put his faith into a source he believes has concrete information."

                    Did he?  Or was he in too much of a rush to publish before anyone else to check it?  Your "([b]presumably[b] reliable source)" in the next sentence says it all.

                    "So far there has been no objective evidence that demonstrates that information to be untrue (an official statement from the CIA is not objective evidence)."

                    Using that logic we can claim that every CIA operative is a child molester (or pick your crime) and assume it is true until every operative has been through a Mueller type investigation.  Any denial is, after all, not objective evidence.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyt-ka … mpeachment

                    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new … ccusation/

                    And it goes on and on... Bia's media is dangerous and unacceptable.
                    Do the Dem really think this kind of journalism is acceptable and going unnoticed?  This latest story is once again false, and pure scandal. Hopefully, Judge Kavanaugh will bring a scandal lawsuit against the NYT, as well as Max Stier.

                    However,  this accusation against Kavanaugh remains in Stier's book and multiple articles on the internet.  Not to mention we have Democratic politicians asking that Kavanaugh step down or be impeached. 

                    What I find more disgusting, it is apparent that CNN, as well as MSNBC,  is willing to blow smoke on this story when there is no fire...  I have to give it to them, they certainly have become experts at destroying reputations by just blowing smoke.

                  3. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    I was referring to your comment on Woodward and Bernstein ---
                    "As recently as last year Woodward defended quoting anonymous sources, saying, "You won't get the straight story from someone if you do it on the record...You will get a press release version of events." He also said that without anonymous sources "...we wouldn't have got the most important stories about what Watergate was about.

                    Woodward and Bernstein put their faith into a source that had concrete information, and they knew they could trust this information due to the fact it came from the Deputy Director of the FBI. No, their source did not come out until 30 years later.   

                    "Throughout the 1972 campaign season, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by an anonymous source they referred to as “Deep Throat,” who, only some 30 years later, was revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr." They also were able to vet information as it was given.

                    CNN could have requested a statement from the CIA before they released the story, not after they broke it. They don't vet stories well.

  4. ginosblog profile image66
    ginosblogposted 5 months ago

    Just think how good he would be and how much he could get done if there were not so many fools in Congress.repeating their sad story. The most transparent President in History and obama got the NPP, really!

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I agree. However, Trump is pushing ahead and will get lots more accomplished.

    2. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I know ginosblog! Just imagine if we could do away with all the other fools in Congress and just let Trump lead, like he was born to. Is there some way we can get the Constitution changed to allow Trump to be President as long as he wants? I'd vote for it, wouldn't you?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)