A couple of hours after the Frank Report made two comments on the You Tube video posted by The Knife Media, editor Jens Erik Gould disabled the entire comments section of the site.
The video was of Mr. Gould’s appearance on Fox and Friends to tout The Knife Media and its fearless analysis of media bias.
The video was published on July 23, 2017. It is described as “Editor-in-Chief Jens Gould is interviewed by Pete Hegseth on Fox & Friends to explain how The Knife Media rates bias and distortion in the news, citing the example of media coverage of Trump.”
Frank Report made two comments:
Comment #1:
The interview is quite nicely done and much of what Mr. Gould says resonates with many. However, people viewing this should be aware that The Knife Media recently changed its name. It was formerly The Knife of Aristotle. The conceptual founder of The Knife is Keith Raniere.
The people in “The Knife” can’t even cut through the bullshit and fake image of the man that is Keith Raniere and they want me to believe they can cut through all of the alleged bias, slant, distortion, etc., of the real media? GTFO.
James Odato is one of the most respective investigative journalists in the Capitol region. Where is their “analysis” of 2012 Times Union article on their charlatan of a leader.
All of thee reaming followers are responsible for all he does. No one man can do all this alone. They are complicit enablers in his scheme and should all be held responsible and suffer the consequences of his actions.
Are any of Knife staff in DOS?
Most of the Knife women are reported to be in DOS. Many of the Knife men are married to women in DOS. Everyone on the Knife is a Raniere-verse insider.
They don’t give any bias ratings to Fox News, just “conventional” media, which is rated as highly biased/slanted.
The Knife coverage bends over backwards to give Trump every possible benefit of the doubt. Yes it is true that there has not yet been “due process of law.” That is what Mueller’s investigation will do (if Trump doesn’t fire him).
“Untangling the slant
Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical.”
Then why the F doesn’t the Knife actually do some reporting about the law and norms? This isn’t reporting, or spin analysis. It’s more consistent with “How do we get an interview on Fox News to promote our product” ?
https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/sorting-slanted-coverage-trump-jr-s-meeting/
SUBSCRIBE NOW
LOG IN
The Knife
TRUMP
POLITICS
UK
NORTH KOREA
ISLAMIC STATE
TOPICS
TOGGLE SEARCH
Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meetingPhoto by Shutterstock
Sorting out the slanted coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting
July 11, 2017
183Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)183
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
6Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)6
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
The Raw Data
Unspun and unbiased. These are the facts.
Trump Jr. confirms meeting with Russian lawyer in 2016
Donald Trump Jr., elder son of U.S. President Donald Trump, said in a statement released Sunday that he met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016, when his father was running for the presidency, at Trump Tower in New York City.
Trump Jr. said he had met with an individual after an acquaintance said she “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and was not told the person’s name prior to the meeting. Trump Jr. said his father’s then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, were at the meeting. He said the meeting lasted between 20 and 30 minutes, and that he had not informed his father of the discussion.
Trump Jr. said the lawyer, whom The New York Times identified as Natalia Veselnitskaya, did not provide details to support her claim of having information about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and that she also talked about “the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act.” Veselnitskaya has reportedly campaigned against the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. government passed in 2012 to withhold visas or freeze assets of Russian individuals who have been suspected of human rights violations. CNN reported she also founded a group supporting the removal of a Russian law preventing U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children, which was put in place following the Magnitsky Act.
The Times first reported on the meeting on Saturday. Veselnitskaya said on Saturday that she, Trump Jr., and the others discussed “nothing at all about the presidential campaign.” Veselnitskaya added she had “never acted on behalf of the Russian government” and “never discussed any of these matters with any representative of the Russian government.”
Kushner’s lawyer Jamie Gorelick said on Saturday that Kushner, who is one of Trump’s presidential advisors, had disclosed the meeting with Veselnitskaya as part of his requirements to obtain security clearance earlier this year. Gorelick said Kushner had initially filed documents that did not disclose the meeting, and then submitted additional documents that included information about “over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition.” Manafort’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment from The Times and other media outlets.
Update: On Tuesday, Trump Jr. released on Twitter an email chain from June 2016. Rob Goldstone, described by The New York Times as an entertainment publicist, wrote to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” offered official documents to the Trump campaign that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” Goldstone also said, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone: “Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Distortion Highlights
Much of the coverage of Trump Jr.’s meeting supports that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process.
This is premature reporting, regardless of what investigators eventually find.
Such reporting can taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself.
SHOW ME EVERYTHING
The Numbers
See how the articles rate in spin, slant and logic when held against objective standards.
CNN
Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign
TOTAL INTEGRITY
66%
very-spun
The Washington Post
Donald Trump Jr. met with Russian lawyer during presidential campaign after being promised information helpful to father’s effort
TOTAL INTEGRITY
59%
very-spun
The New York Times
Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton
TOTAL INTEGRITY
57%
very-slanted
The Wall Street Journal
Trump Jr. Met Russian Lawyer Who Claimed to Have Information on Hillary Clinton
TOTAL INTEGRITY
61%
very-slanted
The Distortion
Read between the lines. Learn how news outlets distort the information.
Top Spin Words
DOGGED
CAST A SHADOW
BIG NOTHING BURGER
DAMAGING
VIGOROUSLY
UNDERSCORE
RETALIATION
MORE STRONGLY
Given the information described above, one could argue that Trump campaign officials may have colluded with the Russian government to influence last year’s election. The email chain released Tuesday could demonstrate that Trump Jr. at least had the intent to receive info about Hillary Clinton from Russia.
But it’s important to remember that there are two investigations in process on this matter and they have not concluded. Many news outlets covering the story don’t give weight to this. Instead, they use spin and slant supporting that the campaign did collude, when this has not been demonstrated through due process. This is premature, even if investigators eventually do find the Trump campaign guilty. And if they don’t, then such reporting could taint our perception not only of this president, but of the office of the presidency itself.
Here’s how the outlets imply potential collusion by framing the data in a slanted way, speculating without evidence, and omitting certain key information.
1. Framing the data
Some outlets emphasize the prospect of collusion, making a guilty verdict seem more likely. For example, CNN presents the following question:
“Did the Trump campaign collude with Russians in an effort to hurt Clinton and win the White House?”
This frames the FBI’s investigation in a narrow way, emphasizing the possibility of collusion and potentially minimizing other interpretations of the facts. The above question could be restated in a more open way, allowing for broader exploration. For instance:
What connections, if any, did Trump’s campaign have with Russia? If there was a relationship, what was the nature and context of that relationship, and what information was exchanged, if any?
Another example is how The Washington Post says, “The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton — at the same time that U.S. government officials have concluded Russians were collecting such data.”
This sentence implies that the timing of the two events was not coincidental and that Trump aides were coordinating with the Russians to oppose Clinton. However, this is a selective comparison of two events, when they may or may not be correlated. Two events happening around the same time doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected.
Is it fact or fiction? Which outlet presents the most spin?
CNN
31% Spun
The New York Times
42% Spun
The Wall Street Journal
43% Spun
The Washington Post
50% Spun
2. Biased speculation
Consider the following sentences:
The meeting “underscore[s] the fundamental issue for federal investigators as they probe Russia’s interference in last year’s election:” whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia “in an effort to hurt Clinton.” (The Washington Post)
“The meeting…points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.” (The New York Times)
The above conclusions aren’t illogical per se, but they are not properly substantiated with evidence. In what way does the meeting “underscore” or “point to” the investigation into possible collusion? If foreign nationals met with campaign aides about negative information related to another candidate, would this always “underscore” possible collusion? There is missing information that would need to be addressed for this judgement to be sound.
Additionally, the outlets provide few alternative perspectives on the meeting. For example, politicians collecting negative information on each other isn’t particularly new or necessarily against the law.
3. Missing information
Before jumping to conclusions about Trump Jr.’s meeting, it’s important to address some key questions that aren’t answered in the coverage:
Are there any specific laws that are potentially being violated? If so, which ones?
What standards are being used to determine if something is collusion or not?
How is this particular meeting evidence of possible collusion? Why does it raise questions?
Based on the information provided, it is unclear whether Trump Jr.’s meeting would be considered a violation of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulations or other laws. A legal investigation would need to prove the allegations in question. Unfortunately, the media does not fill in this missing information, which can mislead readers.
Untangling the slant
Our analysis isn’t suggesting the Trump campaign is likely guilty or likely innocent. At this point, we don’t know. What it does indicate is that there’s more to the story than what the coverage presents. Ideally, readers wouldn’t need to sort through FEC regulations or untangle slanted information in order to gain a clear, comprehensive understanding of the story. This is why The Knife’s goal of raising the ethical standards of news reporting is critical.
Fiction
or
Fact
The Washington Post
“The meeting suggests that some Trump aides were in the market to collect negative information that could be used against Clinton…”
There was a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 between Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and Veselnitskaya.
Saying that Trump aides, presumably referring to Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort, were “in the market to collect negative information” is the reporter’s interpretation of the meeting and may be unfounded speculation. His statement said that prior to the meeting he was told Veselnitskaya “might have information helpful to the campaign,” not that she had “negative information that could be used against Clinton.”
The New York Times
“…President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and the Russians…”
There have been meetings between Trump associates and Russians that were previously not disclosed.
The facts are pretty straight forward – undisclosed meetings aren’t necessarily enlightening or astonishing, though calling them “revelations” may suggest otherwise. Also, to say these meetings have “dogged” Trump may imply they point to collusion, or at least make him look more suspicious – why else would the meetings “plague” him? But this is the reporter’s opinion, not fact.
Fact Comparison
Facts in only 1 source
Facts in 2 sources
Facts in 3 sources
Facts included in all sources
Inaccurate
The Trump aides met with Ms. Veselnitskaya on June 9, about a month after Mr. Trump effectively clinched the Republican nomination. (The Wall Street Journal)
On May 26, 2016, Trump won enough delegates to earn the GOP nomination. That was two weeks before the June 9 meeting, not one month.
Headlines
An article’s headline can direct how the news is understood. Compare and contrast how different outlets present the story through their headlines.
ABC News
Trump Jr. tries to downplay meeting with Russian attorney
States that Trump Jr. was diminishing the importance of the meeting, which may suggest he is trying hide something.
How might your impression change if this headline were more fact-based? For example: “Trump Jr. releases statement about meeting with Russian attorney.”
Business Insider
Donald Trump Jr. provided 2 wildly different statements to describe his meeting with a Russian lawyer
Exaggerates the differences between the statements Trump Jr. made about the meeting
“Wildly different” is a subjective, non-measurable description of the differences between his statements. How different do they need be be before they’re considered “wildly different”? Other than being dramatic, this phrase could imply he’s being deceitful, even though providing different information doesn’t automatically mean he’s lying.
Similar on The Knife
The coverage of Trump’s visit to Poland: a hybrid of spin and cherry-picked information
Two ways the media dramatizes the SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s executive order
Where implications fail: Trump, Mueller and the media
Balance
Get the full picture! Don’t buy into cherry-picked information.
The media’s slant:
Trump Jr.’s decision to meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya raises suspicion of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
The New York Times and The Washington Post further imply that the meeting itself may be questionable or perhaps unlawful.
What the media doesn’t explore:
We don’t have enough information as to whether the meeting violated any laws or regulations. Only two first-hand accounts of the meeting are presented – Trump Jr.’s and Veselnitskaya’s. Both report that the meeting did not involve any substantial discussion about the campaign and no negative information about Hillary Clinton was shared.
Politicians regularly collect information about opponents, negative or otherwise, for use in campaigns. The outlets don’t specify if collecting this information from a foreign national would be considered illegal, and if so, under what conditions.
Credits
Writer
Julia Berry López
Spin Experts
Chelsea Brown
Tine Stausholm
Slant Experts
Ginger McIntosh
Everett Hart
Logic Experts
Sylvie Lloyd
Leah L. Mottishaw
Data Expert
Lisa Reider
Researcher
Lisa Reider
Lead Analyst
Leah L. Mottishaw
Editor
Shane Mottishaw
Lead Editor
Jens Erik Gould
Tags
ElectionsPoliticsRussiaTrumpUnited StatesDonald TrumpDonald Trump Jr.Jared KushnerPaul ManafortNew Yorkinvestigation
Up Next
The Syrian ceasefire: Seeking balance in the news
SUPPORT THE FACTS.
Subscribe to a better type of news and get access to all of our analysis for only $15/mo.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
LEARN MORE
Trending on The Knife
Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets
Drama and one-sided reporting in the coverage of Trump’s tweets
From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea
From caution to fear: How spin shapes the latest media coverage on North Korea
Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama
Trump and Putin’s meeting: A guide to the added drama
ABOUT US
OUR TEAM
SUPPORT
CONTACT US
FAQS
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
© 2015-2017, The Knife, LLC. All rights reserved.
Join the Newsletter
Be part of the solution. Become aware of how the media distorts the most important news stories.
Email:
SUBSCRIBE