So rachel Maddow big news was......

[brettdale]

Someone sent her something that was fake?

Uhm this has been going on for decades, people send Journo's fake stuff with
hope that they will report it and it will blow up in their face.

I mean seriously?????

[blogslut]

1. I thought it was newsworthy.

We can't all have the same opinions I guess.

[trueblue2007]

2. it WAS newsworthy

[JHan]

3. specifically she said people are shopping fake, legit looking documents..

with the intent to undermine major news reporting on Kremlin involvement in the election.

I found it interesting.

[brettdale]

6. well

Well report the true stuff and ignore the fake stuff.

[angstlessk]

14. Ignore those who are selling fake news? I think they should be outted!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. The point is that it was a very good forgery

that probably wouldn't have been discovered as such if they hadn't noticed the almost invisible dots that identify which printer created a document and when - and that the dots were identical to the ones on the real document leaked from the NSA. If Maddow hadn't been so thorough and careful she might have reported the document as being real and a huge scoop (it contains the name of an American citizen in the Trump campaign, whom she did not identify, and which she said would not have appeared in a real NSA report). It's "fake news" that whoever sent it could turn around and say "See? Fake news!"

[oberliner]

30. They said there were typos, spacing issues, and an American named

Seemed like the dots was just something to make the build up sound more interesting.

[rockfordfile]

24. No. If some crook is trying to sabotage the Russian reporting, then it should be talked about.

Not hidden. Only a person that supports that type of un-American behavior would be for not talking about it.

[TrishaJ]

77. Agreed.

Since it actually happened to Dan Rather with the Bush AWOL story, journalists are smart to be very careful.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Nope

Tell us it all. The tie to Intercept not checking it's sources and what happened in 2004 is clear.

The Intercept ain't shit. We knew that already - she just confirmed what we already knew.

[Demsrule86]

76. Why?

[LanternWaste]

80. I think pointing out the "fake stuff" is part and parcel of accuracy.

I think pointing out the "fake stuff" for what it is, is part and parcel of accuracy.

[unitedwethrive]

4. It is good to get the warning out for other media. You know the Trumpkins m.o. is "Anything to win."

This is so like them.

[Sparkly]

5. Review the timeline. nt

[Flaleftist]

7. If the way it was faked indicates

it wasn't just some random Trump supporter, I say it actually is big news. It is an attack on the media and possibly by people complicit in the crimes being reported/investigated.

[yallerdawg]

18. Wasn't Rachel indicating the fake document was constructed...

before the original document was posted online by 'The Intercept'?

It couldn't have been an amateur, internet shit-stirrer, copy-and-paste job.

I, too, think THAT is her news!

[Flaleftist]

21. I didn't see her show, but that's what I understand

from what I have read here.

[SeattleVet]

52. Yes, that's what she said.

It'll be very interesting to see where this story goes; what else they find out, or who suddenly manages to drop out of sight for a while.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. This is a very big deal.

Maddow got a document that on very close examination seems to have been copied from the real classified NSA document that was leaked to The Intercept. The timing indicated that it was created after the Intercept leak but before the leaker, Reality Winner, was arrested. It is probably an intentional effort by unknown people to discredit any news agency that reported on it - it would be later revealed as fake and whoever reported it as authentic would suffer the same fate as Dan Rather. Worse, it would cast doubt on any reporting on the Trump/Russia matter. They are trying to find out where the document came from.

Russia?

[still_one]

29. Thank you!!!!!!!!!

[chia]

33. +1000

[Salviati]

39. This is exactly why it is newsworthy.

[alwaysinflux]

40. I don't understand

Who could have done this other than someone at the intercept. And what would be the point of that if they had already published it?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. That's the question. Assuming the timing was what Rachel thinks it was,

did someone at the Intercept intentionally make the forgery for nefarious purposes? Or did someone at the Intercept carelessly leave the original around where someone else could steal it? Did Reality Winner give a copy of the NSA document to somebody besides the Intercept? Or did it come from inside the NSA? It could be that the time line is incorrect, but it still begs the question of who got ahold of the original to create a template.

The real NSA document that Winner leaked was used as a template for a forgery that contains entirely different information from the original, including the name of an American citizen, a member of the Trump campaign. So that wasn't information the Intercept had already published.

[alwaysinflux]

53. Oh thank you for the clarification /nm

[Dem2]

56. I agree

Can't understand the mindset of someone who would pooh-pooh this.

[Lisa0825]

64. Unless their goal is also to undermine the press. Just sayin'. nt

[emulatorloo]

60. Great summary. N/t

[riversedge]

83. I was unable to watch last evening. Thanks for the detailed summary.

[writes3000]

9. Why is this worthy of a new post? I notice you do this a lot. What's your point?

[ecstatic]

10. It is news because it was likely from a WH official or high ranking NSA official

with the goal of further discrediting news organizations. The constant efforts to discredit our media is very important news, and also happens to be the first step in dismantling a democracy. If we don't stand up and remain vigilant about this, we'll be left with one government controlled propaganda outlet (FOX news).

[hlthe2b]

11. The way in which it was done limits the amount of suspects and if exposed...

may very well be yet another nail in Trump et al coffin. Regardless, her careful documentation serves as a very necessary and timely warning to other reporters AND goes a long way in countering the Trump attacks on the press...

So, yeah, I think it big news. And if, by chance it gets traced back to anyone even remotely associated with Trump, it will be explosive.

[NCTraveler]

12. While I think it's newsworthy.

I think it is more of a couple second piece to alert the media. Seems this was more about self promotion, but I wouldn't be caught saying that here.

[Sparkly]

15. Did you watch?

And listen?

[Takket]

26. self deleted...

i saw her last 15 minutes where she did the summary and when i went to look it up I got some, let's call it... bad information.

I stand corrected!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Apparently you didn't actually see the show.

[bigtree]

19. trolls gonna troll

...right, brettdale?

[mucifer]

20. I didn't get the sense from the tease yesterday that the news would be earth shattering

I felt like she was telling us it would be interesting and they worked on it for a long time. But, I did not feel it would be the number one story on the news cycle.

[Atticus]

22. I watched Rachel's show. I have now read your post.

"I mean seriously?????"

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Is that all you saw and heard?

[rockfordfile]

25. That person sounds like a troll.

[still_one]

27. It is big news. You remember what happened with Dan Rather? That was an intent to

take a factual story, bush's AWOL, produce fake documents about it, and then expose those documents as fake so the story goes away.

and while the news media should absolutely verify, and insure a story is accurate, make no mistake about this, it is an attack against the media, and if it turns out that government officials or foreign powers are involved in an organized agenda to falsely discredit the media, that borders on an attack against a free press

[Bluepinky]

51. Could Carl Rove be lurking?

He and his friends in the George W administration knew (and carried out) every dirty trick in the book. They have taught Trump and his team the same techniques.
I loathed Carl Rove, what a scumbag.

[NewJeffCT]

82. Imagine if the story came out in 2000

that somebody (*cough cough* Karl Rove) was shopping fake documents about Bush's national guard service? Instead of Dan Rather getting fired for what amounted to a true story with one document not authenticated, the story either never runs or runs without the "fake" document and maybe Bush loses a few thousand votes in Florida and the election because of it?

[drray23]

31. you have listening comprehension issues ?

Had you paid attention, you would have realized she uncovered that this document was forged from a real classified document before reality winner released it.

This indicates that whomever did this has access to that. For example, one of Trump's sycophants trying to feed the wrong information to news networks with the goal of catching them red handed and discrediting them like they did to Dan Rather. That kind of stuff is what dictatorial regimes do all the time. Its the precursor to dismantling the media and putting in place one that is controlled by the regime. Turkey, Russia, Polland are such examples.

[JHan]

37. +++++++++++

[chowder66]

32. Did you watch it?

I did. I found it to be very news worthy and she set it up well. She said it was strange and something other than the usual news cycle.
She also said it was a warning.

Quite an important one when you think about all of the retractions going on lately that she identified.

This fake document seems like a bit of a different animal than the usual fake info they get.

[Loki Liesmith]

34. Willfully ignorant OP?

You utterly failed to understand the story. The only question is if you MEANT to misunderstand it.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Could you please combine all your posts into one thread?

[mulsh]

36. that's the basic story, of course if you miss the part where she revealed the mechanics of verifying

the doc was fake which by the way also provide a roadmap for smart folk at NSA, FBI to trace such a document you're not to blame. Although that aspect was in many ways more important than the fact the doc was the latest in a series of career destroying fake or misleading documents.

Ms Maddow does tend to take the long way to her point sometimes. I'm sure other, more focused journalists will examine this issue at some point.

[AgadorSparticus]

38. this is VERY interesting!! This tells me they are scared of her

They want to take her down and discredit her. She is getting TOO CLOSE!!

Good for her!!! she is one smart cookie!! GO RACHEL!!!!

[monmouth4]

74. Hannity....Rachel has him talking to himself and I put nothing past him..n/t

[NastyRiffraff]

41. You see, here's the deal

Someone, we don't know who, is shopping fake documents. Now, why would anyone do that? One reasonable explanation is that they want to embarrass a news organization, possibly many of them. The Dan Rather example was pertinent here.

Couple that with the fact that Dump consistently complains about the media, culminating in saying standing with the Polish president that he's a victim of "fake news," you have what looks like a serious attempt to limit a free press. POLAND doesn't have a free press and Dump deliberately aligned himself with Poland in that regard.

Yes, what Rachel said today was important. It's also important that other news organizations know about it and were warned. Not everybody is as careful as she is.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Their kindergarten attempt to fool Rachel did not work, who was fooled, the one who tried to

fool Rachel.

[Kingofalldems]

44. Wow. Every single night.

[Skittles]

72. yup

and for a LONG TIME

[MelissaB]

88. Like clockwork.

[George II]

45. Context? Or is this a guessing game?

[WinkyDink]

46. The STORY, as Rachel eventually mentioned, is WHO PREPARED IT? Who had ACCESS to the

CLASSIFIED ORIGINAL, from which a template was made, BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC?

The trap was to get RM to mention the person named in the document, undoubtedly an innocent person, and suffer the "Gotcha!" consequences.

Mueller's investigation would then lose credibility, as well.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. Even if the named person actually was involved in the Russia hack,

if the document were to be revealed as a forgery that person would likely be off the hook, just like W was off the hook for going AWOL from the Texas ANG, even though he probably really did, because the document Dan Rather used was discredited (though I don't think it was conclusively proved to be fake).

[WinkyDink]

68. Good point! Ha--maybe it's Jared!

[Gothmog]

47. This is a tactic that worked for W in 2004

[karynnj]

84. It worked in the sense of smearing Rather, a strong news voice

However as the story developed, before it blew up, the NYT reported that in their poll, they asked people who responded they were for Bush, whether that would change if it was determined that he had problems in the Texas NG (I do not remember the specific question). The result was that NONE of those polled changed their position. This suggests that one of two things were happening - 1) his then current role as CiC while the US was at war was far more important than what he did as a twenty something or 2) the story was already pretty much accepted and was not considered important because he himself had already defined the period in his life up to age 40 as when I was young and irresponsible. For his evangelical base, note how this fits the lost sheep who returns to the fold meme.

Note that had the SBVT actually proved that Kerry was not a war hero, that would have mattered. It was one of the things that defined who he was as a person - and the country did not know him all that well at that point. By the election, anyone who would have considered voting for Kerry knew that they were lying. What the liars cost the Kerry campaign was that they took time away from further defining a person with an incredible history of public service, often taking on no win, but critically important investigations. It likely also meant that they could not make as much use of the sincere passionate endorsements from people who knew him when he protected their lives while under fire. In Bush's case, his service in the NG was NOT part of his definition in 2004, his role in mythologized role in the wake of 911 and his status as a wartime President did. (In 2000, it might have hurt him.)

I suspect that just as that eliminated Rather as a strong voice for years, the intent here is to back the Trump claim that anyone criticizing him is fake news and to eliminate a voice many of us here trust. Consider that the President of the United States retweeted a video where he is seen knocking out "CNN".

I think that BOTH the Rather attack and this are designed to tarnish the credibility of mainstream media.

[Hekate]

49. It's quite a detective story. Remember how Dan Rather's career was assassinated?

He was taken in by false documents that conveyed the truth we all believed, but that needed to be proven. As Rachel pointed out, after that no news agency would touch the topic of W's inglorious career in the TANG with a 10 foot pole, and the topic was dropped.

And Dan Rather was kicked to the curb, while Dubya got to be potus for 8 years.

The documents she received were red hot, if true. They looked really good. She investigated them extremely carefully (she must have been a helluva doctoral student) and concluded that they are very skillfull forgeries.

Richard Engel congratulated her on "avoiding a bear trap." If she had stepped in it, it would have meant the end of her broadcasting career, we would be no closer to impeaching Trump, and in fact every future discussion of Trump/Russia would be dismissed out of hand.

[Kingofalldems]

50. So she is bad for receiving and recognizing fake news?

[Eugene]

54. Not before on this scale.

Per another MSNBC report from yesterday, the White House is leaking booby trap stories they can use to discredit the press. The Trump Gang is playing dirty.

[Beartracks]

55. No surprise: Republicans have to fake the "fake news" they complain about.

That is to say, Republicans always do the very things they accuse others of doing.

To be sure, there is *real* fake news, but that all seems to come from "their" side (which includes Russia).

===============

[Justice]

57. It was big news!

[Eugene]

58. The big thing is that the phony scoop document copied not yet published elements

from The Intercept's document. Rachel received the suspect document after Reality Winner was arrested but before The Intercept published its storied. The phony scoop came from a privileged insider.

The Show is repeating now on the East Coast.

[lostnfound]

59. Would you have felt better if the big story was about her getting fired?

Just curious. You know, because Dan Rather getting fired was big news, when it happened.

Who do you think is doing this?

Is it the same person that sent CNN some fakes, and caused three people to get fired?
Or maybe you just don't think that media matters?

[kentuck]

61. Good points !

[emulatorloo]

62. Delete your account.

[Lisa0825]

65. +1

[JI7]

67. yup, we can see what the agenda is with this

probably disappointed rachel didn't fall for it and report it as if it was true .

[OnDoutside]

69. Yes,first Mensch, then Taylor, now Maddow.

[JI7]

70. Mensch and Taylor are not in the same category as Rachel Maddow

[OnDoutside]

78. In terms of rubbishing them, some posters see no difference.

[exboyfil]

63. A really important story would be to backtrack the document

to its author. The first step would be the determining if the metadata hasn't been tampered with. If so then you either have the woman who carried out the document or someone at The Intercept as the next link. Perhaps they could tell if the fake derived from the original forgery or the online document published by The Intercept?

Of course it could be some 400 pound guy in his mom's basement.

[IndianaDave]

66. I don't understand why you want to dismiss Rachel's revelation

so lightly. In the current atmosphere of direct, relentless attacks on legitimate news sources, she has stopped - dead in its tracks - a disconcerting attempt to minimalize her objectivity and credibility. I don't understand your motives or your objectives. Your negative criticism seems to be an over-reaction. Rachel utilized due diligence before publicly reporting information that was suspect. Exactly what bothers you about that? Why so critical? What harm has she done? How has this action offended anyone, other than those who were trying to trip her up? I sincerely don't want to offend you, but your post is truly confusing.

[Skittles]

71. that is a BIG DEAL

this shows how DESPERATE THEY ARE which just another indication of their GUILT

[lamp_shade]

73. Here's the video. You should watch it.

[Demsrule86]

75. It is important in my opinion.

[Vinca]

79. I think it was very important because whoever did it had access to the original leaked

intelligence sent by that Reality woman to the media. The copy sent to Rachel was a cut and paste job on the same copy which was indicated by the crease in the copy and the printer codes. Similar things apparently got people fired at CNN and got retractions from other outlets. What a great way for someone to prove it's "fake new." This has to go directly back to the Trump administration. Either they got their mitts on the original copy and doctored it or they have a friendly FBI agent on board.

[LanternWaste]

81. Your sentiment to minimize and trivialize her seems rather consistent of late.

Your sentiment to minimize and trivialize her seems rather consistent of late.

[FSogol]

85. It is really sad you don't understand marketing and think that's an acceptable way to

attempt to discredit a rare liberal voice on tv.



See response #19.

[Paladin]

86. Oh, goody. Yet another LET'S TRASH RACHEL thread.

Reload and take aim once more, circular firing squad......

[itcfish]

87. Remember Dan Rather?

CNN journalist who were fired? This is news and important news.