Bloomberg Corrects FAKE NEWS Bombshell Trump Bank Records

[Tom B]

Oops.

Bloomberg Corrects FAKE NEWS Bombshell Trump Bank Records

Bloomberg News corrected Wednesday its bombshell report that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records pertaining to President Donald Trump and his family.

The corrected report said the bank records “pertain to people affiliated” with Trump. Bloomberg had originally reported that Mueller “zeroed in” on Trump.

“Mueller issued a subpoena to Germany’s largest lender several weeks ago, forcing the bank to submit documents on its relationship with Trump and his family, according to a person briefed on the matter, who asked not to be identified because the action has not been announced,” Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

Trump’s attorney John Dowd denied the original Bloomberg article. “We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources,” Dowd wrote in a statment.



Bloomberg’s correction follows a similar one from The Wall Street Journal.

“An earlier subheadline said a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office requested data and documents about President Trump’s accounts. The subpoena concerns people or entities close to Mr. Trump,” the Journal article said.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/06/bloomberg-corrects-bombshell-trump-bank-records-story/

 

[Slartibartfast]

If citing attorney client privilege between Don Jr. and Trump because a lawyer was in the room fake news?

 

[Max E.]

Its almost starting to look like the mainstream media might be biased..... Can anyone point me to a time someone in the MSM had to retract a story they invented that was pro Trump?

 

[gwb-trading]

You cannot deny that this "news" once again turned out to be fake news and completely retracted by the reporting outlets. (Well the one more honest reporting outlet).

 

[Slartibartfast]

Fake news is intentionally false.

A mistake that is corrected is not fake news.

Applying a jingoistic term ad nauseam speaks of your education more that anything about the 'MSM'.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Fake news is intentionally false.

A mistake that is corrected is not fake news.

.

What?

Fake means untrue. Regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental is irrelevant. It's still fake. False. Wrong.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What?

Fake means untrue. Regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental is irrelevant. It's still fake. False. Wrong.

The term was coined for a specific phenomenon as you well know.

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media."

Something can be incorrect without intent to be.

 

[Wallet]

The question should be asked, why does the MSM rush to release inaccurate reporting in a light that's most damaging to the President. There was a time when the editorial process halted these types of releases until the facts were established. Now it's a race to get the assumed story out before the competition regardless of its accuracy or veracity.

 

[gwb-trading]

The term was coined for a specific phenomenon as you well know.

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media."

Something can be incorrect without intent to be.

Yeah, but when the entire intent of your reporting is to drive sensationalism and to push your bias then it is nothing more than yellow journalism which is deliberate misinformation.

At some point the news stories step over the line and become so obviously false and ridiculed that the top editors of the publications pushing the story have to retract it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, but when the entire intent of your reporting is to drive sensationalism and to push your bias then it is nothing more than yellow journalism which is deliberate misinformation.

At some point the news stories step over the line and become so obviously false and ridiculed that the top editors of the publications pushing the story have to retract it.

You should call it yellow journalism but if we abuse terms then every manslaughter we should call murder.

Do you sincerely believe that Bloomberg's editors printed that knowing it would only cause them reputation damage the next day?

It all goes to the "Idiocracy" when the ordinary people just start howling fake! fake! fake! at anything they don't immediately like. Banana republics have a higher standard.

When I heard of the Matt Lauer error I will say I considered if NBC had been used to manipulate the market. I am still suspicious and I am actively watching for any report of strange trading activity beforehand.

If the same story had shown on Fox, Daily Caller or Breitbart etc. nobody would have reacted until it was confirmed with at least another few source. ABC News was able to cause a stir because people have/had faith in it as usually reputable.

Now Bloomberg make a mistake.. or is it a mistake? Possibly two errors are coincidental. I very much doubt the editors wanted to make an own-goal?