Putin Helped Trump; no wonder Johnson didn't publish Russian Report

[Twilight Hue]

When compared to what?
It is easy to dismiss article as Fake News, The Guardian is much better than most.

I have to admit, I like the Guardian admitting it's OK to have bias.

Media bias is OK – if it's honest | Nathan Robinson

 

[Altfish]

I have to admit, I like the Guardian admitting it's OK to have bias.

Media bias is OK – if it's honest | Nathan Robinson

It will put a slant on a story but does not deliberately print lies.

 

[stvdv]

The Guardian is a British newspaper

Yes, and my reply was not based on English or American newspapers, but on the fact "Americans blaming Putin for their mess"

 

[Altfish]

Yes, and my reply was not based on English or American newspapers, but on the fact "Americans blaming Putin for their mess"

I didn't read it like that.

More like, "Trump was happy to accept Russian help" - and the Brexit campaign was the same

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Guardian is pretty much the most respected and reliable british Paper, when reporting news.
However its opinion columns and editorials are from the left of centre viewpoint. and it makes that clear.
It does not support any political party.

Under previous ownership ( Long Gone) it was Liberal owned and edited.

 

[stvdv]

I didn't read it like that.

More like, "Trump was happy to accept Russian help" - and the Brexit campaign was the same

Thank you for your reply, though I read it a bit different.

To me more like "due to visits in 1987-2000 of Trump to Russia", Putin had him by the balls, having some info on him (I read before about this Miss Universe context and being photographed, which they mention here). So, I read it not so much as "Trump was happy to accept Russian help", but more like "Trump was kind of forced (by info they had on him)". But Trump's spokesperson said it's disgusting and all fake news about RUSSIA, so I don't know who to believe.

Meanwhile, Trump had said flattering things about Vladimir Putin, a person talked about by some leading US politicians as a cold-eyed KGB killer. “Wouldn’t it be great if we got along with Russia,” Trump would muse.
That he was the Kremlin’s preferred candidate is not in doubt. What has been a source of endless conjecture is the lengths Russia was prepared to go to to help Trump win.
One candidate above all might help bring this about, the experts confidently believed – the “mentally unstable”, impulsive” and “unbalanced” Trump.
The report seemed to confirm what Trump would later deny: that Putin’s spy agencies had gathered compromising material on him, possibly stretching back to Soviet KGB times.

Trump visited communist Moscow and Leningrad in summer 1987 following an invitation from the Soviet envoy in New York. Trump returned in the 1990s, and early 2000s, seeking business deals, and flew in for the 2013 Miss Universe beauty contest, when he stayed in Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton hotel. Putin’s FSB agency had spy cameras in guest rooms, and a full-time officer on the premises, the Senate intelligence committee later found.

The report appears to confirm Trump was being watched, though no dates or locations are given.“Considering certain events that took place during his stay on Russian Federation territory (Appendix 5 – personal characteristics Donald J Trump, paragraph 5), it is urgently necessary to use all means to promote his election to the post of President of the United States,” it says.

The allegation that the Russians had kompromat on Trump would haunt his four years in the White House. True or false, his flattering treatment of Putin was one riddle of his chaotic presidency.

Trump did not initially respond to a request for comment.
Later, Liz Harrington, his spokesperson, issued a statement on his behalf.
“This is disgusting. It’s fake news, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA was fake news. It’s just the Radical Left crazies doing whatever they can to demean everybody on the right.

 

[Altfish]

Thank you for your reply, though I read it a bit different.

To me more like "due to visits in 1987-2000 of Trump to Russia", Putin had him by the balls, having some info on him (I read before about this Miss Universe context and being photographed, which they mention here). So, I read it not so much as "Trump was happy to accept Russian help", but more like "Trump was kind of forced (by info they had on him)". But Trump's spokesperson said it's disgusting and all fake news about RUSSIA, so I don't know who to believe.

Well, when I said "Trump was happy...." I did mean that it got him out of a pickle. Yes, I've heard stories about porn stars and filmed Moscow hotels.

But when it comes to "I don't know who to believe" I diverge, the liar-in-chief or The Guardian - sorry, no contest

 

[stvdv]

But when it comes to "I don't know who to believe" I diverge, the liar-in-chief or The Guardian - sorry, no contest

I guess from your words, that you are not a Trumpeteer, or you really distrust The Guardian. The Guardian I did not know about, hence I googled

I checked the Guardian, and it seems that 84% of the readers trust the Guardian

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".

I checked Trump also, 86% of the "strong republicans" thought that Trump is honest and trustworthy (but the less strong ones, voted 60%)
Donald Trump Is: Honest and Trustworthy (June 2019)

I am amazed about these high numbers, although it does make sense that those that vote/read X have faith in X

But to believe that Trump is honest and trustworthy is quite amazing to me. Though I have to admit, that Trump can talk smooth. Trump once came in my dream (never had that happen to me before; politician in my dream, even a long dream), and he was so nice and friendly, that it even got me confused for a while. And even when I see him giving speeches, I can see how good he is in manipulating the crowds. But hearing all the lies in the past few years and all the inconsistencies, I just don't trust him. But newspapers I don't trust either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Guardian is pretty much the most respected and reliable british Paper, when reporting news.
However its opinion columns and editorials are from the left of centre viewpoint. and it makes that clear.
It does not support any political party.

Under previous ownership ( Long Gone) it was Liberal owned and edited.

So what happened to the BBC?

 

[Father Heathen]

That's right.

It only works for the other side of the argument.

Silly me.

Where has "the other side" dismissed objective, verifiable facts in lieu of preposterous and convoluted conspiracy theories, even after being thoroughly debunked?
Have you done a sweep of all the pizza parlor basements in your hometown, yet?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So what happened to the BBC?

Not a newspaper last time I looked - and the BBC is the first page I open on my browser.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So what happened to the BBC?

The BBC is just fine.
Both left and right are certain that it favours the other.
So it is pretty certain that the reports are accurate and fair.
It never gives its support to the government in power nor to the opposition, it remains as neutral as the facts allow.
Its charter requires it to give both points at view and equal air time to political parties.

However it is free to report the facts of any situation with out fear.

I rather doubt any other country can boast having such a fair minded and accurate public broadcasting service.

 

[Yerda]

It will put a slant on a story but does not deliberately print lies.

The journo (Luke Harding) who broke the story about this latest "leak", also wrote the story about Paul Manafort meeting Julian Assange which was most likely fabrication (given that it vanished without reference from the Guardian website once people started poking holes in it). So they do print lies sometimes.

I'd take this new story with a grain of salt until some/any of the details can be verified.

 

[Yerda]

I have to admit, I like the Guardian admitting it's OK to have bias.

Media bias is OK – if it's honest | Nathan Robinson

Ironically they fired this guy after he tweeted a joke about US aid to Israel.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course papers are Biased. they always have been. There is no problem with that at all.
However when reporting "News" they should be "Accurate" and not let bias corrupt the facts.
When they are writing editorials they can be biased as they like.
In the UK at least, everyone knows where each paper is coming from, and they make no secret about it.

What is unforgivable is writing Editorials as if they were news. or news as editorials. fortunately that does not often happen here.
When papers get it wrong or a news source proves to be inaccurate they should write a correction as soon as possible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, and my reply was not based on English or American newspapers, but on the fact "Americans blaming Putin for their mess"

I am sure that Putin stirs the pot when ever he can, and is very happy to do so.
In much the same way the west stirs the pot in Russia.

 

[stvdv]

I am sure that Putin stirs the pot when ever he can, and is very happy to do so.
In much the same way the west stirs the pot in Russia.

Oh yes, no doubt about that. Humans like to stir other's pot even more than their own. Only I don't hear Putin cry so much and (but maybe he does in Russian, which I don't understand).

Just recently the West friendly asked Putin that a certain cyber problem should stop, and within ca. 24h Putin stopped the hackers responsible