CNN Challenges Politico's Carson Story, Politico Backpeddles

[mikegriffith1]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Politico fucked up severe.

 

[Mac1958]

This was a bad story to run with, as key parts of it are clearly subject to interpretation.

The only time a "news" organization is going to run with such a thin story is if it has an agenda.
.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There's probably grounds to sue Politico for that headline and article as defamation.

 

[Wildman]

No, Ben Carson didn’t lie about West Point

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

The key word here is “fabricated.” Did the Carson campaign admit any such thing? Absolutely not. The facts reported by Politico don’t even support this interpretation of the Carson campaign’s response.

Read more at No, Ben Carson didn’t lie about West Point

the only lying being done here is the ******* libermedia!!

 

[gtopa1]

No, Ben Carson didn’t lie about West Point

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

The key word here is “fabricated.” Did the Carson campaign admit any such thing? Absolutely not. The facts reported by Politico don’t even support this interpretation of the Carson campaign’s response.

Read more at No, Ben Carson didn’t lie about West Point

the only lying being done here is the ******* libermedia!!

What is a "Pixie".....a name called out from the "cheap seats" to a visiting team's player. When they asked what a "Pixie" was they were answered with a well rehearsed chorus......someone who "has relations" with fairies.

They got the message.

Greg

ps: you've probably never heard of "Ballymore".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

 

[washamericom]

nice, anyone drop the race card yet, or is that a one way street for democrats ?
ben's life matters ?

do politico people hang out at the white house ? the media is hurting our nice country i think.
can anyone confirm authenticity of above poster. circa ?

 

[jillian]

Politico fucked up severe.

nah... small mistake.

carson's bubbemeitzer is still a bubbemeitzer.

 

[jillian]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true. the one document may not have been.

bush still ran off from his service in the national guard.

ben carson is still a loony liar.

your point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine if the LMSM Spent 1/10% of 1% of the time investigating Obama's shady background?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true.

Thus are Democrats defined.

 

[jillian]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true.

Thus are Democrats defined.

you mean by reality?

 

[imawhosure]

It should be apparent to everyone that the lefties, and the establishment republicans need badly to get the "outside 4" out of the race.

Why?

Because on the lefties part, while they proclaim that Hilly will beat anyone who stands against her on the repub side, they are hedging their bets. They know if Hilly loses and they lose control of the bloated government in Washington along with its many levers, like the EPA, department of Education, department of labor, Department of housing, etc...it will still be there if a RINO is elected when they win again. BUT, if one of the "outside 4" gets the repub nomination then wins the general, many of those places where they hide the Washington libs will be gone, thus it will be harder to control the citizenry through goofy ideas. Those goofy ideas will then have to be passed by congress directly to be implemented, putting their power at risk every election.

Lefties are NOT stupid; crazy maybe, but stupid, absolutely not! They need these "4th department of government that is not elected" around, so no matter who you vote out, nothing changes. That is really why they are afraid of Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina. All of them talk about the bloated government, and cutting it down to size, while getting rid of departments we no longer need. If you are a lefty, you can't have that, or a direct vote by your members in the House and Senate would need to directly vote for the change, allowing YOU the citizens to vote them out the next cycle if you did not agree.

Oh yes, lefties may be crazy, but they are not stupid! Expect hit pieces on ANY of the "outside 4" that are ahead of establishment candidates, as both sides hedge their bets to protect the Washington apparatus from an attack by the citizenry. In fact, if ANY of the "outside 4" win the GOP nomination, I expect some of the top RINOS to work behind the scenes to elect Hilly. Doubt it? That is what some of them did to Reagan also, which is one of the reasons he chose Bush (a big time RINO) to be his running mate. To keep the establishment happy. I don't think Trump or Cruz would do that. Fiorina or Carson, I am not sure.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I doubt anyone will be held accountable at politico for this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

You people are the best denialists on the planet.

Carson said he was offered a full scholarship.

He was not offered a full scholarship.

He lied.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"CNN Challenges Politico's Carson Story, Politico Backpeddles"

There’s nothing in other news reports that call into question the fact that Carson has stated several times that he was offered a ‘full scholarship’ to West Point, yet this Friday Carson admitted that there was no ‘full scholarship,’ rather an ‘informal offer’ for a ‘nomination.’

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Can you imagine if the LMSM Spent 1/10% of 1% of the time investigating Obama's shady background?

They're so covered with blinders and partisanship that I can't even imagine that small percentage.

 

[Fang]

Thanks to Politico I'm now seriously considering voting for Ben Carson. I loved seeing him fight back against these lies.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, believe it or not, CNN is challenging Politico's dishonest hit piece on Ben Carson, and Politico has now changed the article title and edited its content. It turns out that the article title was an outright lie and that even the first version of the article contained no evidence that Carson or his campaign had "admitted" lying about a West Point "scholarship"; nor did it contain any real evidence that Carson had falsified the account. Here's an excerpt from the CNN article:

That story was initially headlined "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson's ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign -- which called the story an "outright lie" -- Politico softened its headline, removed the "fabrication" language, and changed some key details -- even as it said it was "standing by its story."( Where Politico's Ben Carson 'scoop' went wrong )
​

Also, as the Daily Wire notes, Carson did not say that he "applied" to West Point, yet Politico falsely made a big deal about its "scoop" that West Point said he never applied. From the Daily Wire article:

But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What’s more, West Point doesn’t offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn’t have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a “full scholarship,” and never applied. . . .

But here’s how Politico editorialized: “When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.”

That’s nonsense. They did no such thing. They provided details that corroborated Carson’s story and explained his loose use of the language. If someone told you that you could go to college for free, you might reasonably conclude that you had been offered a full scholarship to attend that university. But Politico would call you a liar if you used such language to describe the exchange. ( No, Ben Carson Didn't Lie About West Point. It's Another Media Hit Job. )​

It is interesting to note how many liberals blindly ran with Politico's story without making any effort to check its accuracy.

At the very worst, Carson is guilty of the great sin of using imprecise language: he said "scholarship" when he should have said "appointment." But, of course, to a civilian writing many years later, as Carson was, it seemed perfectly accurate to say "scholarship." An appointment to West Point is, in fact, a type of full-ride scholarship.

It seems "Dan Rather Syndrome" has not been eradicated in media.

(The Democrats' film version sure was though. Oy vey, such flop sweat ...)

dan rather's story was true.

Thus are Democrats defined.

you mean by reality?

Au contraire! By abject, cow-like stupidity.