After echoing a report leaked by The Washington Post a day before the Nevada caucuses claiming that an intelligence briefing a month earlier had informed members of Congress that Russia was once again interfering in US elections to get President Donald Trump reelected, CNN made an effort to find out what was behind the story. The Post’s article suggested that there was also a link between the Kremlin and Senator Bernie Sanders.

For those who feel they may have
heard this story before, it is the proverbial déjà vu of Russiagate all over
again. In the context of the Democratic presidential primaries, the idea of a
connection between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bernie Sanders could
only be damaging to the senator from Vermont, who is the current Democratic
frontrunner.

The Democratic
Party Goes to War With Its Voters

READ MORE

The CNN reporters showed themselves a
little more enterprising than The Washington Post and managed to do something The
Post apparently had no time for. They caught up with three national security
officials who had the inside story and clarified it for them. The officials
explained that it amounted to an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The source of the original story was a certain Shelby Pierson, whom CNN identified as the US intelligence community’s top election security official. The corrected version of the story tells us that Pierson “appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month.” One of the three officials called Pierson’s conclusion “misleading” and another said it “lacked nuance.”

It should be added that Pierson wasn’t the only one to overstate her case. The Washington Post, which decided to publish the story in the absence of any concrete evidence, took the initiative of overstating Pierson’s overstatement. CNN’s reporter explains that interviews with the three officials reveal that “the US doesn’t yet have the evidence to conclude that Russia is interfering in the election because they view Trump as a leader they can work with, because they have a preference for President Trump.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Overstate:

Explain with lurid detail something that is utterly false while giving the impression that it should be accepted because it is merely an exaggeration of the truth

Contextual Note

CNN could have simply presented this
as an inaccurate story that has now been corrected and presented the known
facts. But its treatment clearly aims at creating new doubts about the
corrected version of the story and raising the expectation that further
developments will contradict the new version and lead us back to the first
conclusion. The implicit message: Stay tuned, it ain’t over. Russiagate still
has legs.

This leads to an extraordinary
display of ambiguous and calculatingly disingenuous journalistic doubletalk. CNN
begins with a TV host who introduces the sequence before presenting the actual
reporter. The host warns the audience: “We need to put a fine point on this
because it is complex, it is nuanced.” For a story about Russian interference
in US elections, this may be the first time in three years that CNN and similar
media have admitted that there may be a need for nuance in reporting the
Russiagate affair.

To make this narrative palatable and possibly defend the fact that CNN amplified The Post’s version on February 21 in a story with the title, “Sanders told Russia is trying to help his campaign,” CNN now invokes two related concepts: complexity and nuance. The obvious purpose is to attenuate the impact of what is quite literally a malicious lie committed by two accomplices: Shelby Pierson and the media, fed by The Washington Post. At least CNN had the courage to investigate it and report on the findings.

The implicit message of The Post’s
article was: Bernie Sanders is an unwitting stooge of the Russians, a useful
idiot. It was only two days later that the public could learn that the US “does
not yet have the evidence,” which is a curiously nuanced way of saying that, in
purely factual terms, there is no evidence. It’s not as if there was suddenly
evidence that no evidence existed. If the presumed evidence doesn’t exist now,
it couldn’t have existed two days earlier when both The Post and CNN gave space
to the allegation.

So, why did The Post, CNN and other
media disseminate what was essentially a malicious rumor? Could there have been
a political motive? The only evidence for that is the language CNN uses to blur
the impact of the new evidence that has emerged concerning Pierson’s misleading
statements.

CNN’s writers must have worked
carefully to insert the adjectives “complex” and “nuanced,” which they coupled
with the assertion that the evidence has “not yet” appeared. It creates the
impression that the rumor or lie might be confirmed as true at some future
point in time. Just to make sure the public understands what we might call the
“possibility of truth,”  White House
correspondent Jeremy Diamond tells us: “None of this is cut and dried, it is
complicated and it is nuanced.” Even more extraordinary is the number of times
the journalists repeat the word “yet,” intended to instill the right amount of
hope that the missing evidence will one day appear.

The logical gymnastics the reporters engage in produced in one of the many “yet” statements a shocking double Freudian slip that the editorial team should have caught and cut. Diamond tells the audience: “Now the United States doesn’t have that information as of yet to conclude conclusively to help [sic] the United States.” He presumably meant to help Russia, but his tautological “conclude conclusively” led him astray. It’s an example of the kind of insistence that Sigmund Freud (kettle logic) and, before him, Shakespeare saw as revealing (“The lady doth protest too much”).

The one bit of not so complex or
nuanced truth we get from the CNN story is this: “One national security
official said Russia’s only clear aim, as of now, is to sow discord in the
United States.” That, by the way, is exactly what Sanders said when queried by
a journalist on the tarmac at the Las Vegas airport.

Historical Note

Some will remember Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s protestations in 2002 — months before the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — affirming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld proudly reasoned: “Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist.”

Using the absence of evidence fallacy
has become a standard practice in US foreign policy. As the Russiagate fiasco
that led to the Robert Mueller-led investigation shows, it has become one of
the favored logical principles not just of the government, but also of the
media. It enables them to create a sense of fear and foreboding. These are the
qualities of a story that attract eyeballs to their news programs. At the same
time, their reporting helps to justify the often extremely aggressive and
sometimes highly illegal “remedial action” taken by the same government that
initially fed them the story.

CNN even provides a psychological
explanation of why the misunderstanding took place. It tells us that “Pierson’s
characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers,
which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a
preference for Trump to be reelected.” Apparently, “pointed questions” can be
dangerously sharpened weapons that poke holes in a security official’s ability
to tell the truth. By emphasizing the fact of “overstepping,” CNN hides the
real point of that sentence: that there is no evidence even of Putin’s
preference for Trump, let alone Sanders.

Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director and current secretary of state, clarified everything last year when he proudly admitted that the CIA trained its operatives to “lie, cheat and steal.” We are left wondering whether the CIA trainers are ever called into corporate media such as The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC or The New York Times to train the editorial staff at least in the lying part of the job.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article
are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial
policy.

The post CNN and the Art of Overstatement appeared first on Fair Observer.

Source: World Politics - fairobserver.com