This one is long but critically important.
File this one under:
#JournalismIsDead
#DontTrustTheLiberalMedia and…
#DemocratLiesMatter
I have now read the CNN article slandering Mark Robinson thoroughly three times. It contains no legitimate or actual sources for the slanderous details inside their report.
All they provide is links to other organizations that themselves are not actual evidence, but just more unverifiable claims from websites, screenshots, etc.
This is called circular sourcing. Circular sourcing uses different media articles at different websites, none of which actually provide any concrete evidence to support the slanderous claims. This is done in an attempt to create a sense of legitimacy in the mind of the reader that is entirely fake. This, of course, is not legitimate journalism or honest reporting.
(Side Note… the tactic of circular sourcing is how the FBI under Director James Comey illegally tricked a FISA Court Judge to grant a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign in 2016. The same people inside the FBI convinced three media organizations to publish separate and individual articles claiming that Trump and people on his campaign team had been meeting with Russians. The FBI then used the doctored articles combined with the fake Russian Dossier to secure their warrant for wire taps, etc.)
In the third paragraph, CNN wrote…
“The comments, which Robinson denies making, predate his entry into politics and current stint as North Carolina’s lieutenant governor. They were made under a username that CNN was able to identify as Robinson by matching a litany of biographical details and a shared email address between the two.”
EXCEPT, they present no verifiable evidence to support what they claimed in this paragraph. No evidence within their article itself, or at the various websites/links they embedded in the article, provides a single piece of verifiable evidence. It’s a… We said so, just trust us approach.
CNN, MSNBC, Slate, and others get away with absolute slander because our laws prohibit public figures from suing for slander. So CNN and others are permitted to publish slander, which is a violation of both their own corporate code of conduct and the universally accepted ethics in journalism.
The Josh Stein campaign and CNN have made a calculation…. If we can sling enough mud at Robinson in the press, we can peel away some voters by creating doubt in their minds about him, and Stein will win. I guarantee you that’s their tactics here.
We all have a responsibility, though, to use critical thinking in order to judge whether or not something like this is believable or doubtful.
How do we do that in this case?
1. Did the person or persons publishing and circulating this article provide any links or references to legitimate sites or organizations that confirm the claims.
Answer… not even one.
2. What about people they quote or get statements from who are making claims about Robinson.
Answer… when you follow the links featured throughout the article and additional links that are found in those, we only find one person making any statements or claims that are on the record. Who is it? An adult porn store owner in Greensboro who “claims” Robinson was a frequent customer. Yet, he provides virtually no customer records or any evidence that Robinson has ever stepped foot in his store. It’s a He Said, He Said.
Furthermore, when I searched for more information about the Adult Porn store owner, I found that he is anti-republican, anti-Trump, and completely partisan.
3. What about the CNN claim that they were “able to identify as Robinson by matching a litany of biographical details and a shared email address…”?
First, virtually every image or link to another source with images does not include legitimate sources. What does that suggest? Either CNN themselves or other people are providing CNN with content that is most likely fake, doctored images of screenshots. This has been easy to do with various software such as Adobe Photoshop. It’s even easier to get away with now with AI.
4. What about the CNN claims of the screen name / handle known as “minisoldr” actually being Mark Robinson across multiple sites?
This answer to this one is a little more complex, which CNN and the Stein campaign are certainly hoping that voters won’t recognize.
A. Every web-based organization, website, etc., maintains its own individual database for customer information and user IDs. This means that one person could be a specific user I.D. in the playstation network, while the same user ID can be by an entirely different person at another site. Heck, it’s entirely possible that the user ID minisoldr is used by countless different people on different websites that are in separate databases.
B. CNNs article provides no confirmation that the user name minisoldr can be attributed to Mark Robinson except two places such as Facebook or Amazon. There are no posts or comments on these sites that are anyway related to porn or other inappropriate materials or topics from any user ID related to Robinson.
C. Neither CNN nor any of their sources/links provide any statements or records from the company’s or organizations that operate the websites they claim Robinson used or visited. This means that CNN hasn’t verified any of these claims.
CNN is providing VIRTUAL NOTHING that supports the terrible and disgusting claims they are making about Robinson.
Upon using critical thinking and a careful investigation into what they are using as “sources”, their is only one logical conclusion to draw. CNN is a willing participant in an illegitimate effort to influence the outcome of an election.
They have provided us virtually no reason to trust them. In fact, it’s the opposite. Their abandonment of journalistic integrity and honesty gives us every reason to believe they are lying to us.
From my point of view, using careful examination and systematic investigation, this article is slanderous election interference.
CNN Slanders Mark Robinson