More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton

[boutons_deux]

The Associated Press Gets Busted Tweeting Fake Trump vs. Clinton Electoral Map




http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-a...electoral-map/

[boutons_deux]

CNN: “Near Unanimous Agreement” Among Journalists That AP Botched Its Report On Clinton Meetings

CNN’s senior media reporter Dylan Byers reported that media outlets criticized an “arguably misleading” story by the Associated Press, where an “inaccurate tweet” promoting the story falsely claimed that “more than half” of the people who met Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the AP’s original review (the story has since been changed) of State Department calendars released to the organization so far, covering roughly half of Clinton’s tenure at State, “[a]t least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.” The APpromoted this story on Twitter by proclaiming “[m]ore than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

Byers explained that other journalists “noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report,” but the AP “is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.” The AP’s story was alsocriticized for characterizing Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who has been a friend of the Clintons for decades, as little more than a donor asking for help. From Byers’ August 26 report:

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets.

Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.

"The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."
[...]
This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.
[...]
Meanwhile, other news organizations pilloried the AP's report.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker wrote that there were "many more nuanced and important details in the story that are being misrepresented — by the AP's own promotional tweet, and by Trump."
Vox's Matthew Yglesias was more direct: "The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08...rica+-+Blog%29

and you rightwingnut dumb s fall for this EVERY TIME.

[TheSanityAnnex]

CNN: “Near Unanimous Agreement” Among Journalists That AP Botched Its Report On Clinton Meetings

CNN’s senior media reporter Dylan Byers reported that media outlets criticized an “arguably misleading” story by the Associated Press, where an “inaccurate tweet” promoting the story falsely claimed that “more than half” of the people who met Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the AP’s original review (the story has since been changed) of State Department calendars released to the organization so far, covering roughly half of Clinton’s tenure at State, “[a]t least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.” The APpromoted this story on Twitter by proclaiming “[m]ore than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

Byers explained that other journalists “noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report,” but the AP “is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.” The AP’s story was alsocriticized for characterizing Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who has been a friend of the Clintons for decades, as little more than a donor asking for help. From Byers’ August 26 report:

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets.

Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.

"The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."
[...]
This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.
[...]
Meanwhile, other news organizations pilloried the AP's report.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker wrote that there were "many more nuanced and important details in the story that are being misrepresented — by the AP's own promotional tweet, and by Trump."
Vox's Matthew Yglesias was more direct: "The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08...rica+-+Blog%29

and you rightwingnut dumb s fall for this EVERY TIME.

Glorious days when you have the MSM attacking the AP.

[Winehole23]

boutons fell for the Citizen's United defense: no quid pro quo, therefore, no corruption.

[Winehole23]

Glorious days when you have the MSM attacking the AP.

you've got it upside down.

AP is the MSM. Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.

[TheSanityAnnex]

you've got it upside down.

AP is the MSM. Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.

I've never considered the AP that way. Was referring to CNN going after the AP.

[boutons_deux]

Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.

bull ing . Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

[TheSanityAnnex]

bull ing . Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

Lol

[TeyshaBlue]

bull ing . Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

Arguably, worse.

[Winehole23]

I've never considered the AP that way. Was referring to CNN going after the AP.

We're not mind readers -- you linked Media Matters.

Also, if the AP isn't MSM, nothing is. A lot of what you see on TV and in the newspapers is ripped straight from the AP wire

[Reck]

I called that AP report a hachet job from the beginning.

A senior writer even had to apologize on CNN for this piece of report.

[Winehole23]

what did he apologize for?

[Reck]

what did he apologize for?

She didn't really apologize but admitted they ed up on breaking the story by omitting key information and it being misleading.

It's an apology without fessing up about it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh.

An apology that wasn't an apology.

We get it.

talking point *check*

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Part of being an educated person is taking the effort to educate yourself. I'm not going to waste time writing a 20 page treatise on Clinton graft in Haiti if the person I'm writing it to won't even take three seconds to google 'Clintons-Haiti". It's all out there.

Sure and another part of being an educated person is learning the ability to articulate your own arguments. No one asked you to write 20 pages. Another part of being educated is being able to write ideas with brevity.

[Chucho]

bull ing . Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

Lombasts Chucho for sourcing an ethical publication with objetive findings. Goes and posts something from a pro-left outlet.

LOLeft tatics down pat. Hypocrisy and back pedaling all day.

[boutons_deux]

AP Deletes Tweet About Clinton’s State Dept Meetings With Foundation Donors

The Associated Press on Thursday deleted a more than two-week-old tweet about Hillary Clinton's meetings with Clinton Foundation donors as secretary of state after from her presidential campaign said it was false.

In a blog post, the AP explained explained that the tweet was misleading and "not backed up" by its own reporting.

Eat , rightwingnut MOFOs

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:

Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

While the wire service had previously defended its tweet and its reporting on Clinton's State Department meetings with people from "private interests" who'd donated to her family's charitable foundation, the post explained that

the AP has since reviewed and revised its policy for removing misleading information from social media.

In addition to the Clinton tweet, the AP also deleted a tweet about Donald Trump and Dwayne Wade's reactions to the fatal shooting of Wade's cousin.

Read the blog post in full below:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29

[Reck]

TheSanityAnnex, what's up?

[TheSanityAnnex]

TheSanityAnnex, what's up?

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretarfy gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

AP was very clear about this in the actual article, which was pointed out to you several times. This was the same time it had to be explained to you the AP could only review what was release to them after having to to sue for the calendars.

[Reck]

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretarfy gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

AP was very clear about this in the actual article, which was pointed out to you several times. This was the same time it had to be explained to you the AP could only review what was release to them after having to to sue for the calendars.

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.

In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."

However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


In other words, the now-deleted tweet gave the impression that a far higher percentage of Clinton's total meetings while secretary were with donors than was concluded by the story's analysis, given that the 154 people included in the review did not encompass the many government officials she was interacting with during her tenure, meetings that Daniszewski wrote "made up the bulk of her workday."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...weet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.

[TheSanityAnnex]

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...weet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.

Stop focusing on the tweet that was retracted.

Wins what round a tweet was deleted. The article still stands. Was the AP article retracted yes or no?

AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

[Reck]

Stop focusing on the tweet that was retracted.

Wins what round a tweet was deleted. The article still stands. Was the AP article retracted yes or no?

AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

Does it matter? omission of guilt has been established already.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Does it matter? Admission of guilt has been established already.

It's a ing click bait tweet that was deleted who cares? And yes the actual article it linked to matters. Does the misleading tweet nullify the factual article yes or no?

[Reck]

It's a ing click bait tweet that was deleted who cares? And yes the actual article it linked to matters. Does the misleading tweet nullify the factual article yes or no?

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.

The AP never said that about their article. What you bolded supports me, not you. How do you not understand they are talking about pulling the tweet and not the article? You bolded the word tweet twice.

In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."

However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."