After erroneous Flynn report, ABC News suspends Brian Ross | ABC News |
ABC News on Saturday suspended investigative reporter Brian Ross for four weeks without pay for his erroneous report on Michael Flynn, which it called a “serious error.”
Ross, citing an unnamed confidant of Flynn, the former national security adviser, had reported Friday that then-candidate Donald Trump had directed Flynn to make contact with the Russians. That would have been an explosive development in the ongoing investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the election. But hours later, Ross clarified his report on the evening news, saying that his source now said Trump had done so not as a candidate, but as president-elect. At that point, he said, Trump had asked Flynn to contact the Russians about issues including working together to fight ISIS.
ABC was widely criticized for merely clarifying and not correcting the report. It issued a correction later in the evening.
“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday,” the network said in a statement Saturday. “The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.
“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience — these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday. Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”
These journalistic “errors” keep the chance of survival for Trump alive. 🙁
Congratulations to @ABC News for suspending Brian Ross for his horrendously inaccurate and dishonest report on the Russia, Russia, Russia Witch Hunt. More Networks and “papers” should do the same with their Fake News!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 3 december 2017
[Update-1] Reply on comment by nicholas:
You have all(most) of the facts but draw the wrong conclusion … blaming the Soviet Union – The Red Scare – Barry Goldwater … now putting all blame on Russia’s Putin who is clearly defending itself from US aggression … using tools of the digital age as the US and Israel have done with cyber warfare on Iran – Stuxnet – decades of propaganda and lies by the US Government, it’s intelligence agencies and the American press and media reporting – what are the facts and what is fabricated – walking a thin line all of the time 🙂
Read Arthur Gilroy’s comments – some of them anyway 😉
In 2001, a different setting – needing an enemy for US warfare – same media – same reporter – what a poor job – how gullible the masses can be – a democracy unworthy – US is not a leading nation across the globe for freedom 🙁
○ Troubling Anthrax Additive Found; Atta Met Iraqi | ABC News – Oct 29, 2001 |
○ The unresolved story of ABC News’ false Saddam-anthrax reports | Salon – 2007 |… and no, it wasn’t Russia that started the Georgian War in 2008 but U.S. puppet Saakashvili!
More below the fold …
13/ Right now conservatives are making hay over ABC erroneously reporting that Trump ordered Flynn to violate the law pre-election–putting them in the bizarre position of saying that at least Trump only ordered Flynn to violate the law post-election. https:/t.co/ka9Hi85lon
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) 3 december 2017
15 But right now we don't have a Flynn confidant saying Flynn said that–and of course Flynn wouldn't have told any confidant about pre-election sanctions negotiations, as revelation of those would be the ballgame on a Trump-Russia conspiracy–so ABC's Ross has to be suspended.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) 3 december 2017
On this topic, see my recent diary …
Y’all do know that Russia is no longer the USSR, no longer practices any form of socialism or communism, and that Putin is a classic example of a right-wing authoritarian Strongman who Strongman Trump clearly admires, right?
Cause, like, it seems like there’s a disconnect about what the “Russia Witch Hunt” is really about.
Protip: it isn’t that neoliberal neocon neocentrist Democrats (who obviously hate America and love trickle down and US Empire) believe that Russia and Trump personally hacked each and every polling station to install Strongman Trump as US President.
It’s oddly strange that anyone finds it unclear that right-wing authoritarian Strongman Trump admires right-wing authoritarian Strongman Putin. And that right-wing authoritarians with shared political, racial, and economic beliefs would want to help each other to then put into effect those policies in their respective countries.
And, yes, I’m aware of The Spanish American War, Central America incursions, Iran, Guatemala, the IndoChina freedom fight against France/US imperialism, Argentina, Chile, more Central American incursions, the middle east in general, Ukraine, etc.
Yes. US Empire is fucking awful. And Drone Strikes are quite literally US Terrorism Proper, full stop.
It doesn’t change that right-wing authoritarian Strongman Trump and right-wing authoritarian Strongman Putin seemed to have worked together with various degrees of Bacon, Kevin to attempt to get Strongman Trump installed as President of the US.
Protip: Attempting to downgrade how Trump became President because the narrative must be about neoliberal neocon neocentrists are dumb by nominating Clinton misses a massive fucking Foreign OP that had as an tacit ally the current US President, and perhaps many of his aides and advisors.
Ignore the receding shoreline and the upcoming tsunami if you want. I just don’t understand how it will help elect actual liberal politicians.
Protip: of course the fucking Democratic party sucks. But, unfortunately, the Republican party is obviously a right-wing authoritarian fascist theocratic faction that is currently operating all three branches of the US government, and a whole lot of the state governments. It must be destroyed first.
When sane conservatives are forced to operate as Democrats, then liberals and Democratic Socialists break off and can begin dragging the country forward. And not one moment before.
The right-wing authoritarian fascist theocratic faction and Putin should have had zero chance to have this presidency, the tax cuts and all this mess.
Putting up Hillary Clinton was their fattest chance to get results so swiftly.
The authoritarian right wing confidence in controlling elections should have been obvious from the political-economic shocks in the post-Soviet territories. For example, here is a low key example:
How Washington Hacked Mongolia’s Democracy
To say nothing of Russia itself in the 1990s.
Those are people that makes things happen. You can bet on them to beat opposition that wonders What Happened. You better get prepared, or take all care before it is too late.
Mind restating your cryptic post in a way that, say, an intelligent 14 year old can understand?
Maybe this means something to you, but apparently I’m such a raging moron that what you just said is essentially non-sense to me.
On an sane Ex-Republican blog I frequent because I refuse to live in a left-wing bubble (yes, they exist!) I predicted that Trump would be the nominee in July of 2015, because he is literally the distillation of modern US conservatism. And while my inner-most heart thought that the US population was too intelligent to elect an authentic right-wing authoritarian Strongman, I didn’t rule it out.
So, if you’re trying to relitigate the 2016 primary by claiming that the Democratic party HACKED THE THOUSANDS OF PRIMARY POLLING PLACES to install KILLERY Killington as the Democratic candidate so she could start a shooting war with Russia, you’re not just doing it wrong, but you missed using this talking point 1.5 years ago.
Try to keep up.
I meant nothing about the 2016 primary here, or even Trump.
It is about right-wing authoritarian fascist theocratic faction getting maximum that they could have hoped for in 2016. They are of different league than the “good Democrats”.
BTW, isn’t it ironic that Bill Clinton transparently supported Yeltsin in 1996?
○ During Yeltsin Era, UK and US Stripped Assets Off Russia
○ Donald Trump and the Politics of Fear
The Coming of Fascism …
○ Netanyahu as ‘John the Baptist’ – Preaching Fear, Terror and Islamophobia
In your second sentence, you say that Strongman Putin and Strongman Trump have been able to get so much (what, exactly?) BECAUSE Hillary Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party Nominee.
Want to take a crack at it again in explaining how that isn’t re litigating the 2016 primary, or shifting the narrative to Killery Clinton?
??? I do not say what you read. We are not trying to figure out each other.
Well, your reply to my reply to your reply contains a narrative shift to [i]Bill Clinton[/i].
We’re approximately 2 decades apart in describing what is going on right now.
I’m on topic. You’re still talking about things that happened 2 years ago, and 20 years ago, respectively.
If the topic is 2016 primaries, I am out.
Bill Clinton appears in the Jacobin article that I linked above (right after mentioning Mongolia). At that time, the Clintons were in the game. But now they are effectively a part of the (right-wing authoritarian fascist theocratic?) universe “conspiring” for Trump.
Dems are about to have a historic opportunity to reverse the “progress” towards fascism. But if they keep putting centrist “sanity”, a Clinton or intersectionality on the pedestal, I fear that authoritarian progression will make another straightforward step forward. Neo-centrists do not have much authority in eyes of most Americans, do they?
Dems had swing back opportunities after Reagan and both Bushes — and what did they do with them? While giving out likeable progressive vibes, Bill Clinton and Obama actually doubled down on the neoliberal/neoconservative course. What should we really expect after Trump? There were also full opportunities to keep decent appearances (if not much more) in 2000 and 2016. But whatever urgencies were then to avoid greater evils, Al Gore and Hillary underperformed.
What is neocentrism? I see this term thrown out a lot on this blog, without a coherent definition. What are its theoretical tenets? Who are its primary scholars? If I were to take a graduate level Political Science seminar, would my professor even know what neocentrism is? Where is its Wikipedia entry?
Reason I ask is that outside of some apparent fanfic and perhaps some quirks to Israeli politics mid-decade last decade, I don’t seem to find anything of substance. For something that apparently is a major ideological perspective, there seems so little info on it. I can find more info to explain Hoaxhism than neocentrism. Just trying to figure out if this is a legitimate ideological position with grounding in some sort of theoretical basis or merely a pejorative to be tossed out to mean “politicians and parties I don’t like.” If the latter, I’m out. So, start laying this out for us.
Neocentrism is essentially the philosophical tenet that if a Democratic politician isn’t willing to come right out and demand single-payer health insurance and a basic income NOW, then the politician is a neocentrist who will just make things worse.
Hence, we might as well let the Republican candidate hold the office. Because then, something something mass social uprising, something something Democratic Socialist utopia.
Neocentrism is a major criticism of run-of-the-mill pragmatic Democrats, made by NeoprogressivesTM, who truly believe that a step in the right direction is the enemy of the good…never mind how the good is the mortal enemy of the perfect, which has to be done immediately or never at all.
For Israel …
○ Can the Israeli Center Hold?
Book often quoted:
S Sandler and Jonathan Rynhold, “Introduction: From Centrism to Neo–centrism,” Israel Aflairs (2007)
Neo-centrism perhaps tied in with the third-way ideology of the mid 90s?
And you might have noticed from that comment I made I acknowledged whatever quirks were going on in Israeli politics a decade ago. So this answer really does nothing to address my question. What I am not seeing is a broad scholarship on this presumably totally real not-made-up ideology called neocentrism. Usually as I stated earlier, I can find a good deal of ink spilled on practically any ideology under the sun. Neocentrism is different. Outside of this blog, a fanfic site, some isolated column, and some writing about something happening in Israel a decade ago, there is nothing. No scholarship, no theory, no significant advocacy for neocentrism. And yet we’re supposed to believe that this is a major political movement. Surely you can understand why I would be skeptical.
As the center ever shifts to the right each election cycle, how else to call the new new centrism, or the whole process? Academic definitions may come too late.
I know people who hope for “something something mass social uprising” (as n1cholas says), and that is how they explain not voting for Hillary. But if uprising will come, I guess it would be from the the third group not the second one, some “third party” Republicans.
In other words, no satisfactory answer. Makes for a convenient pejorative that apparently is being justified an old Bush era quote, and little else. Tells me what I need to know.
You choose words above performance. Fine
I choose using words properly and having evidence to support using those words. Even words like neoconservative and neoliberal have legitimate meanings. Why? Very thoughtful people (whether we agree or not with their conclusions) developed a theoretical basis for those particular terms. We can examine how those theories have worked out in practice. The evidence is out there. I can find tons worth reading. I can use those terms in ordinary language with people who are not Booman Tribune bloggers and have some hope of being understood. Neocentrism does not measure up. Simple as that. It is a term thrown around with no basis other than a few blogger avowals, and apparently where the goalposts will constantly shift. That should be concerning to anyone attempting a conversation here. I’ll stick to actual political terms that have actual theoretical and factual bases. Beats the alternative. If you like the alternative, that’s on you. Not me. Good luck.
How do you deal with novelty? Seriously, while you work on a theoretical basis, the caravan is carrying on.
Vernacular usage of terminology is a part of the political game. Donald Trump demonstrated that in 2016 with name calling. Erudite progressives are signaling wrong. Look at moronic results: powerlessly lost elections; the Supreme Court balance; sex shaming among themselves.
Let’s get this down to brass tacks. I deal with what is evidence-based, and that includes novelty. If you follow the sciences at all, one thing we have learned are that very novel findings are the least reliable (they do not replicate well). So if your argument for using a term practically no one else uses outside this blog is based on its novelty, that won’t cut it. This cannot be that hard to grasp. I asked a simple question, for which you could have supplied ample evidence for that question (at which point I might conclude I had looked in the wrong places), but instead you chose to play word games with me. Shows me you’re clever, but when I am interested in something with some real meat on it in order to be able to better communicate, clever is simply not good enough. The best I can conclude is that there is a subset of bloggers at BT who are looking for a novel pejorative to throw around at their real or imagined political enemies (I am guessing generally those within the mainstream of the Democratic Party), latched on to a term (neocentrism) and ran with it without really thinking through whether or not that was a real thing. If you pay attention, you’ll probably realize that neocentrism has turned into something of a running joke now among a number of the regulars. Why? Because there is nothing there to make that term useful, and because there is nothing there to make that term useful, its most vociferous users, albeit clever, come across as shrill. Anyhoo, this conversation is about as fruitful as arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Please stop before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
Live politics is not science. It will not validate your academic frame. The world is burning while you are digging “what is this new-new-ever-shifting-rightwards-center?” These are my brass tracks.
Live politics still requires an agreed-upon terminology. Words have to have some meaning to them, otherwise it is impossible to hold a coherent conversation. We don’t just go making up words on the go for the sake of cleverness. The world will burn unless those progressive voices on the left can understand what in the hell they are telling each other. Right now there is a handful of bloggers at BT (you included) who have latched on to some sort of made up terminology and expect the rest of us to take what you purport that to mean on faith. In fact, by your own admission, since your phenomenon (neocentrism) is a constantly shifting target, there would be no way to define it – perhaps to do so would contradict whatever guiding principle leads you to believe that speaking in nonsense terms is supposedly acceptable. And if the world burns, it won’t be because a non-existent ideology is ignored, but because people failed to act because they couldn’t understand each other well enough to coordinate even basic actions. Forget it.
No, the academic level of terminology is a drag in live politics. Words are more powerful in their visceral effect rather than their formal sense. When the world is burning, we better be hierarchical dogs rather than opinionated cats.
You still realize that you never did address the original question. Instead I get deflections and non-answers. I am sure that you are a very bright and clever individual, but I don’t have the luxury of expatriating and thinking about America’s problems in the abstract. Those problems are lived experience for me and those whom I care for. Nor do we have the luxury for failing to speak or write clearly and consistently. So, sadly, we will leave this little blog sideline with a simple observation: a satisfactory definition of this brand new ideology that a handful of frogponders consider legitimate, neocentrism, can not be defined because it appears to not exist in any meaningful sense. They will fail to define or defend their term when challenged. They will deflect instead.
Packaging as US foreign policy …
○ US needs neocentrist foreign policy | Politico – Sept. 2013 |
○ Centrists attack the left, but they are the true ideologues | The Guardian – Opinion |
Here @BooMan the term is primarily used by AG …
○ TarheelDem Asks: Who are the Neocentrists? My Answer.
All those are merely opinion pieces. What is missing is something substantial in the way of theory and scholarship. Practically every “ism” I can think of (whether used properly or not in everyday conversation) is one in which considerable effort has been made to develop theory. If I want to read about neoliberalism, I can find a wikipedia page, and I can find plenty of scholarly books and articles on the topic from both advocates and critics. Right now, in order to convince me that this is a total real not-made-up ideology, I need to see those elements in place. Isolated opinion pieces and blog posts won’t cut it. Try again.
But I agree with you! Have I ever used that term at all? To me it’s like wishful thinking of a third party here or in the UK … it’s not going to happen. A pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow.
Alright. No worries then. I don’t recall you using that particular term. But regrettably there are some who do, and have no foundation for doing so. About all they accomplish is to muddy the waters rather than discuss or argue in good faith. Really the last thing any of us need.
Willing to share the name of the ex-Republican blog?
It was called GOPLifer. And the guy had well-thought out posts where he described what he believed Conservatism really is. Once you read it, you realize the guy is a Rockefeller Republican. He voted for Obama, etc.
He changed sites after Trump was elected, and now it’s called Political Orphans. He has figured out, finally, that his only real option is to vote Democratic.
He has also began writing for Forbes, and wrote for the Houston Chronicle.
Both links provided since the older site has older stuff, and the newer site has newer stuff…obviously.
Start with the first link, and at least skim what the guy thinks Conservatism is.
https:/goplifer.com
The second link is his new site.
https:/www.politicalorphans.com
By the way, pretty much every one of his posters there are liberal, and their comments are often just as valuable as the original post…just like here, which is why I read that too.
You write:
Outside of the impossibility of a good definition of the word “sane” in this context, it appears to me that you have hit only half of the nail on the head here.
A more complete statement might go something like his:
Of course, even if that were to happen…a result regarding which the mass media are working more and more feverishly with every passing day…Russia and China would still have something to say about it.
It’s 1984, people.
WTFU.
1984.
Permanent (nudge-nudge/wink-wink) “war,” which serves to keep the world’s population in a such a sufficient state of fear that they can be fairly easily controlled.
1984 came a little later than Orwell imagined…I’d say around the time that Russia and China became sufficiently capitalist/oligarchist to be trusted in this latest version of the Great Game…but we’re in it now.
Up to our necks.
Is there a better solution?
I don’t think so. Not anymore. The system will continue to function just as it is functioning now, at least until it breaks down. (When? Years? Decades? All bets are off on that subject because the whole system is too potentially volatile. One outsider country with a single successful WMD attack could change everything.) All “extremists”…and the Trumpers are most definitely that in eyes of the U.S. neocentrist/bipartisan control system, as are the Sanders supporters…all extremists of every stripe will be if not totally eliminated at least reduced to buffoonish cartoon characters that can be thoroughly non-personed by the media and thus laughed off. Trump’s recent success was simply a failure of the U.S. control system. It was not ready for the power of social media, and Trump and his allies (Controllers?) took advantage of this mistake.
That particular error will not be repeated.
They will either totally get rid of Trump and his allies (by any means necessary, hopefully non-violent) or failing that, at the very least cripple them, probably through some sort of change in one (or maybe even two) of the majorities in Congress over the next several years.
Watch.
The center will hold.
This time.
Watch.
AG
The above is now a stand-alone post.
1984, The Center and Trump
Please comment there.
Thank you…
AG
Brian Ross has been making journalistic boo-boos for a very long time. Fascinating that he gets canned for an essentially minor cock-up wrt to Trump.* Perhaps ABC, unlike the rest of the MSM, is finally getting it that not being strictly accurate in reporting on Trump is how they have been losing credibility with the general public over the past two years because Trump, unlike other politicians, immediately pounces on and exploits any MSM boo-boo regardless of how inconsequential.
Trump’s MO for accurate and negative reports on him are the same. The MSM has yet to figure out how to deal with these instances.
Meanwhile — USians hear nothing about other important matters. Such as b’s Slapstick in Kiev. Saakashvili (John McCain’s BFF) is demonstrating in Ukraine why he’s not welcome in his home country of Georgia.
*What difference does it make if Trump tasked Flynn to contact Kislyak on two matters? The Logan Act has never been used in over two hundred years and to do so now is ridiculous. For example – September 15. 2008 — Obama Tried to stall GIS’ Iraq Withdrawal
That was candidate Obama making foreign policy contrary to the GWB administration policy.
Correction — I misread the Brian Ross boo-boo. It wasn’t that Ross named Trump as Flynn’s taskmaster to contact Kislyak (my mistake) in December 2016 but that Trump assigned the task during the campaign. Thus, it was a major a boo-boo on the part of Brian Ross. (Still not his first major error.)