Hush Companions
Toronto Escorts

CNN Reporter Harasses Elderly Woman Whose Facebook Group Was Targeted By Russian Trol

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Fake news network CNN continues to sink to new lows




As part of its obsessive coverage of Russiagate, CNN sent reporter Drew Griffin to Florida to interview an elderly woman who runs a Facebook group that was targeted by Russian trolls prior to the 2016 election.

The woman, Florine Gruen Goldfarb, had no idea that her Team Trump Broward County Facebook page was targeted by Russian operatives, but that didn’t stop Griffin from haranguing her anyway.

Griffin showed up to Goldfarb’s home in Pembroke Pines and, microphone in hand and TV camera in tow, proceeded to grill her about the Russian operation.

Griffin acknowledged that Goldfarb was likely unaware that her group was targeted by Russians. And in a tweet of the two-minute interview, CNN acknowledged that she “unwittingly promoted” a rally orchestrated by Russian trolls. (RELATED: Mueller Indicts 13 Russian Nationals Involved In Election Meddling)

Details of the operation that targeted Goldfarb’s group were laid out in an indictment handed down last Friday by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Russian operatives posing as Americans used a Facebook group called “Being Patriotic” to promote a series of rallies across Florida, according to the filing.

Goldfarb and members of her organization attended a rally in Fort Lauderdale and helped promote others. All the while, she had no idea that the events were being pushed by the Kremlin operation, which was headquartered in St. Petersburg, Russia.

It is unclear what Griffin hoped to accomplish with the interview. He sought to convince Goldfarb that the Russian firm, called the Internet Research Agency, had infiltrated her pro-Trump group.

But Goldfarb was more focused on who actually attended her rallies.

“Those people weren’t Russians. I don’t go with Russians,” she said at one point.

“Those people that were with me were all Trump supporters,” she added.

“And all apparently following the direction of Russians who were actually infiltrating,” Griffin replied.

“B.S.,” said Goldfarb.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/cnn-reporter-elderly-woman-russian-trolls/
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
I actually saw the interview and your headline is as usual wrong. He asked questions respectfully. Thats what reporters do. To suggest that he harassed her is absurd.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I actually saw the interview and your headline is as usual wrong. He asked questions respectfully. Thats what reporters do. To suggest that he harassed her is absurd.
I agree that Canada-Man is provocative and that's what causes people to respond with such emotion, but you should pick your spots. In this case CM quoted the Daily Caller headline verbatim, so it is not HIS headline. You'd know that if you had read the linked article. Oldjones would certainly be here to scold him if he had modified that headline, even if his motives in doing so were to be less provocative.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
I agree that Canada-Man is provocative and that's what causes people to respond with such emotion, but you should pick your spots. In this case CM quoted the Daily Caller headline verbatim, so it is not HIS headline. You'd know that if you had read the linked article. Oldjones would certainly be here to scold him if he had modified that headline, even if his motives in doing so were to be less provocative.
I don't care whose headline it is. It is inaccurate and does no represent what in fact happened.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I don't care whose headline it is. It is inaccurate and does no represent what in fact happened.
Not as inaccurate as your last post. If you didn't care whose headline it was, you shouldn't have attributed it to CM, as if he had applied some "spin" to the article.

And btw, I also watched the interview, and the CNN reporter certainly did harass this woman. She isn't a politician or political operative, yet he grilled her like one. In short, he was a total a-hole, and she had far more patience with him than most people would, and much more than he deserved.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
I watched the CNN interview and this woman was ignorant not to realize that her Facebook account was manipulated by the Russians. No way that this rude lady was harassed by CNN. This link brings out the whole fact of this whole scenario. Trumptard cult followers look and learn the actual facts:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...-trump_group_was_infiltrated_by_russians.html

Trouble is that the Trumptard supporters do not want to accept the degree in which the Ruskies stuck their paws into the last election including this woman's group:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/20/media/internet-research-agency-unwitting-trump-supporters/index.html
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
Not as inaccurate as your last post. If you didn't care whose headline it was, you shouldn't have attributed it to CM, as if he had applied some "spin" to the article.

And btw, I also watched the interview, and the CNN reporter certainly did harass this woman. She isn't a politician or political operative, yet he grilled her like one. In short, he was a total a-hole, and she had far more patience with him than most people would, and much more than he deserved.
You are way too funny. As usual ignore whether the post was correct or not and find some other issue to distract from the real one. The CNN did not harass the woman regardless of what you think of my syntax.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I watched the CNN interview and this woman was ignorant not to realize that her Facebook account was manipulated by the Russians. No way that this rude lady was harassed by CNN. This link brings out the whole fact of this whole scenario. Trumptard cult followers look and learn the actual facts:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...-trump_group_was_infiltrated_by_russians.html

Trouble is that the Trumptard supporters do not want to accept the degree in which the Ruskies stuck their paws into the last election including this woman's group:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/20/media/internet-research-agency-unwitting-trump-supporters/index.html
The fact that you saw this old lady who didn't ask to be interviewed, and was in no way a "political player", get grilled by this j-off reporter (who never bothered, by the way, to explain to her the basis for his conclusion that the group who interacted with her were Russians) and you saw her as the one who was rude explains an awful lot about your own behaviour.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
You are way too funny. As usual ignore whether the post was correct or not and find some other issue to distract from the real one. The CNN did not harass the woman regardless of what you think of my syntax.
As usual, you're playing by your own rules of logic again. Carry on.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
The fact that you saw this old lady who didn't ask to be interviewed, and was in no way a "political player", get grilled by this j-off reporter (who never bothered, by the way, to explain to her the basis for his conclusion that the group who interacted with her were Russians) and you saw her as the one who was rude explains an awful lot about your own behaviour.
The reporter was very polite in the manner in which he asked her those questions. Compare that with the Fox News Network as they try to slam the guests that do not have their political views and you will know what rudeness really is. There was no way that this reporter was harassing her, but was only trying to explain about what the Russian agency was all about and how she she was unknowingly taking directions from them. The fact that she did not want to believe the facts that the reporter was clearly trying to explain, sums it all up. Look at the way she walks away from him and that will garbage your statement that he was not trying to explain that the group who interacted with her were Russians.

My behaviour is far more gentlemanly than that of your cult leader called Trump. If you want to know how a person should not behave if he wants to act like a gentleman, then look in his direction, but then you adore that person and no doubt that explains your behaviour. Okay!!
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
I actually saw the interview and your headline is as usual wrong. He asked questions respectfully. Thats what reporters do. To suggest that he harassed her is absurd.
I saw the original interview and agree that the reporter was respectful. I also saw a follow-up interview with the reporter and he stated he fully explained to Goldfarb what had happened and that LE had proof.

It's funny that the article refers to her as "elderly". Certainly she was older, but she was strong, feisty and had more than enough energy to organize and march in several rallies.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
I agree that Canada-Man is provocative and that's what causes people to respond with such emotion
Wrong. People respond with emotion to C-M because C-M constantly posts fake or misleading information. When he actually posts his own opinion, which is rare, he often misrepresents the facts (a polite way of saying he lies) and attacks anyone who questions him (just like you do).

In this case CM quoted the Daily Caller headline verbatim, so it is not HIS headline. You'd know that if you had read the linked article.
This has been discussed many times. Cut-and-paste man seeks out articles that align with his personal agenda - aka "his spin on truth". In the past he has indeed doctored titles (rarely, but he has done it). Regardless, your point is invalid: If C-M posts 25 anti-XX articles (most of which are based on false information designed to further villionize XX) it's pretty safe to say that C-M has a problem with XX. He (and you) can no longer hide behind "he's was just posting an article verbatim". He chooses to post fake articles that supported his agenda/spin.

And btw, I also watched the interview, and the CNN reporter certainly did harass this woman. She isn't a politician or political operative, yet he grilled her like one. In short, he was a total a-hole, and she had far more patience with him than most people would, and much more than he deserved.
The majority here are certainly disagreeing with you and the Twitter community is disagreeing with you.

Wrong - She is indeed very politically active; she has organized several political rallies, she runs a political web page, she leads a local political group and her group was removed from a park where they were trying to disrupt a gun-control rally.


The fact that you saw this old lady who didn't ask to be interviewed, and was in no way a "political player", get grilled by this j-off reporter (who never bothered, by the way, to explain to her the basis for his conclusion that the group who interacted with her were Russians) and you saw her as the one who was rude explains an awful lot about your own behaviour.
Old lady - you are such a BSer. She was powerful, aggressive, feisty and has the energy to organize and march in multiple rallies.

Wrong - she wanted to talk to CNN about her website, that was most of the original interview.

Wrong - absolutely she's a very active political player as described above.

Wrong - the reporter indeed explained the situation to her and described the LE evidence.

You obviously either haven't done any research on this issue, or you are completely bias.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Wrong. People respond with emotion to C-M because C-M constantly posts fake or misleading information. When he actually posts his own opinion, which is rare, he often misrepresents the facts (a polite way of saying he lies) and attacks anyone who questions him (just like you do).


This has been discussed many times. Cut-and-paste man seeks out articles that align with his personal agenda - aka "his spin on truth". In the past he has indeed doctored titles (rarely, but he has done it). Regardless, your point is invalid: If C-M posts 25 anti-XX articles (most of which are based on false information designed to further villionize XX) it's pretty safe to say that C-M has a problem with XX. He (and you) can no longer hide behind "he's was just posting an article verbatim". He chooses to post fake articles that supported his agenda/spin.


The majority here are certainly disagreeing with you and the Twitter community is disagreeing with you.

Wrong - She is indeed very politically active; she has organized several political rallies, she runs a political web page, she leads a local political group and her group was removed from a park where they were trying to disrupt a gun-control rally.



Old lady - you are such a BSer. She was powerful, aggressive, feisty and has the energy to organize and march in multiple rallies.

Wrong - she wanted to talk to CNN about her website, that was most of the original interview.

Wrong - absolutely she's a very active political player as described above.

Wrong - the reporter indeed explained the situation to her and described the LE evidence.

You obviously either haven't done any research on this issue, or you are completely bias.
You are in a mental prison of your own making.

This woman organized Trump rallies attended by one or two dozen people, all of which she claimed to know. And this is a political player to you? Worthy of significant infiltration efforts by the Russians? That's how they intended to subvert the election, a dozen people at a time? It's preposterous on it's face. You should be embarrassed to be embracing such far fetched theories.

I'm sure the woman was happy to talk about her little group. Old people are often happy to talk to anyone at all about anything. However, it defies common sense to believe she invited a reporter to grill her about Russian infiltration on her front lawn. OBVIOUSLY, the CNN reporter showed up unannounced, proceeded to question her, and then dropped a bomb on her that someone who she had corresponded with on Facebook is alleged to be a Russian. Naturally, she had no idea of that, never believed she had been speaking to any Russians, never became a Trump supporter because of it, never organized her little group because of it, and never organized her little "rallies" because of it. This reporter tried to embarrass her by essentially suggesting she was the unwitting stooge of Putin.

CNN is free to develop its theories on how Russians or Russia tried to involve itself in the election, but to confront some old woman and essentially suggest to her that she was duped and was unwittingly involved in some subversive plot is not only garbage journalism, it's garbage behaviour. If that was my elderly mother and were I to see this going on, that reporter would have been escorted off the property in a nanosecond, and would not likely return. You don't treat the elderly this way, period. It's just common decency and common sense.

As to the ways of CM, he, like Charlemagne, likes to drop bombshells in the forum. Everyone is free to attack the news articles he posts. However, too many people here are just attacking every article he posts simply because he was the one who posted it, or because you don't like his sources. You're wasting your time. It persuades no one that you think certain sources are always unreliable when, at the same time, you embrace other sources which are, at the least, often unreliable. All you accomplish by the attacks in these threads is to rile yourself up into an unreasonable state - in this case, into a state where you see a muck raking reporter as a good guy and an elderly lady with a modest involvement in politics as the villain. Don't transfer your disrespect for the elderly over to your real life. It seldom leads to good results.

As to whether the majority of TERB members here agree or disagree with you or I, don't make me laugh! This is a pooner board with very limited participation in this particular forum. Don't kid yourself that you get a representative cross section of societal opinion here.

I will admit to some bias. I operate on the presumption that the news business in the private sector is a for profit operation that is extremely competitive, and that much of the competition is essentially free (web based news sources). In order to sell advertising, you either have to capture a lot of eyeballs (which can be more easily accomplished by publishing "shocking stories" ("Trump support group infiltrated by Russian agents"), rather more moderated takes on reality (like "Old woman doesn't vet the background of everyone on her Facebook group. Some of her Facebook friends turn out to be Russians."), or you can publish stories that align with the political objectives of your sponsors. Seems like CNN is in the latter business, as they certainly don't have the eyeballs. My bias is that I think reporters who work for such organizations are low-lifes without a shred of integrity. They're told to go out and get a specific story, and they're happy to do it, and they don't have any regard for the impact of their stories on the people they write about. My bias is that I have a lot more respect for elderly people (particularly of her generation) than I have for any CNN reporter working today.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I agree that Canada-Man is provocative and that's what causes people to respond with such emotion, but you should pick your spots. In this case CM quoted the Daily Caller headline verbatim, so it is not HIS headline. You'd know that if you had read the linked article. Oldjones would certainly be here to scold him if he had modified that headline, even if his motives in doing so were to be less provocative.
Here I am. Actually I mostly get after folks for simply pasting crap like this, and contributing nothing of their own. It's much more common than the deceitful edit, and c-m's habituated to it. The trouble with that technique is, even quoting other people's misleading, untruthful, inaccurate and incomplete stuff without comment, makes you a party to disseminating their falsified and distorted views. As for distinguishing our own words from what we quote, surely every adult learned how to do that in elementary school. And why. Please don't suggest c-m failed, when he added nothing.

This latest paste-on of his isn't even pretending to be news. Although unlabelled, it's entirely editorial opinion or at best a sort of review of another outlet's story. I can only assume c-m's source couldn't find news of their own to report. To quote a different reviewer: "I actually saw the interview and your headline is as usual wrong. He asked questions respectfully. Thats what reporters do. To suggest that he harassed her is absurd." That last apparently refers to the article's contention "…that didn’t stop Griffin from haranguing her anyway"[my emphasis], which seems to be either fabrication, or evidence the writer's vocabulary isn't adequate for his job.

The real question is why anyone read the linked article ever. But as for this Forum, if a post cannot stand on it's own, then it must fall under the responses it gets. If further reading is required, it's for the poster to say so, say why, and create enough interest for us to make the effort they didn't.

But above all, be responsible for what they posted. Where are you c-m?
--------
ha·rangue
həˈraNG/
noun
noun: harangue; plural noun: harangues
1. a lengthy and aggressive speech.
synonyms: tirade, diatribe, lecture, polemic, rant, fulmination, broadside, attack, onslaught; More: criticism, condemnation, censure, admonition, sermon; declamation, speech; informal-blast; literary-philippic "a ten-minute harangue"
verb
verb: harangue; 3rd person present: harangues; past tense: harangued; past participle: harangued; gerund or present participle: haranguing
1. lecture (someone) at length in an aggressive and critical manner.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Here I am. Actually I get after folks for simply pasting crap like this, and contributing nothing of their own.
Unless they are Charlemagne, who posts just as much crap in exactly the same way, but you don't find his stuff offensive.

This latest paste-on of his isn't even pretending to be news, it's entirely unlabelled editorial opinion, or at best a sort of review of another outlet's story. I can only assume c-m's source didn't think to find a story of their own. To quote a different reviewer: "I actually saw the interview and your headline is as usual wrong. He asked questions respectfully. Thats what reporters do. To suggest that he harassed her is absurd." That last apparently refers to the article's contention "…that didn’t stop Griffin from haranguing her anyway", which seems to be either fabrication, or evidence the writer's vocabulary isn't adequate for his job.
You don't have to be a reporter to know how he should have handled this interview more respectfully. He should have called the woman in advance and told her that he wanted to interview her about the possible membership of Russian agents in her Facebook group. He should then have informed her of the information that CNN believes exists to substantiate that claim. The woman could then have either declined the interview, or prepared for an interview after looking into the matter herself. Showing up on her lawn unannounced and pursuing this issue, no matter what the language or demeanor (although I was not impressed with the courtesy of his cross examination technique), is NOT respectful. She is not a public persona simply because she organized some small Trump rallies among her Facebook friends. Members of the general public are entitled to more respectful treatment than the ambush tactics that the press applies to professional politicians.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Unless they are Charlemagne, who posts just as much crap in exactly the same way, but you don't find his stuff offensive.
Mostly not. The technique is, but it's Politics Forum, not English Comp; I do note his failings in the latter when I think his threads need my political help.
You don't have to be reporter to know how he should have handled this interview more respectfully. He should have called the woman in advance and told her that he wanted to interview her about the possible membership of Russian agents in her Facebook group. He should then have informed her of the information that CNN believes exists to substantiate that claim. The woman could then have either declined the interview, or prepared for an interview after looking into the matter herself. Showing up on her lawn unannounced and pursuing this issue, no matter what the language or demeanor (although I was not impressed with the courtesy of his cross examination technique), is NOT respectful. She is not a public persona simply because she organized some small Trump rallies among her Facebook friends. Members of the general public are entitled to more respectful treatment than the ambush tactics that the press applies to professional politicians.
I'm curious where you studied interviewing techniques and standards. My sense is that ordinary interviews are commonly unprepared, that's preferred because it's more genuine. On the other hand professional pols, interviewed for their considered views and platforms are usually given just such preparation as you describe. Are you saying this woman should be considered and treated as a politician rather than just a citizen? Or that pols should always be ambushed as you suggest she was? Careful how you answer.

As to what she organized, if she really did keep it to her personal friends as a private affair, then … Boy! Do we ever need to be concerned about Rooshians interfering in our tiny personal lives! "Thanks be everyone's armed! They're everywhere! They're every where!" However I prefer to think you're wrong on that too: That she actually went public, on Facebook or wherever, hoping to attract some sort of crowd, and did. Not a big one perhaps, but even so, it was big enough to get Russians, And CNN. And c-m's pretend-news source.

And now TERB. And the Rooshians got exactly what they were after: Discord, distrust and suspicion aplenty. Thanks to the dailycaller and folks like c-m
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I'm curious where you studied interviewing techniques and standards. My sense is that ordinary interviews are commonly unprepared, that's preferred because it's more genuine. On the other hand professional pols, interviewed for their considered views and platforms are usually given just such preparation as you describe. Are you saying this woman should be considered and treated as a politician rather than just a citizen? Or that pols should always be ambushed as you suggest she was? Careful how you answer.
Sorry, can't tell you how I know about media interviewing techniques (or other interviewing techniques). I have a strict policy about revealing information about myself on the internet.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that she should have been treated as a citizen, not as a politician. Politicians owe duties to the public and can be held accountable for those duties, including by the media. If ambush techniques, and the attendant invasion of privacy by arriving at someone's home, can ever be justified (and I'm not saying they are justifiable, or even all that helpful in informing the public), they must be justified only on the basis of the special accountability that politicians owe. However, politicians are cagey beasts. You're correct in noting that most maneuver themselves into being able to prepare for such interviews (although Rob Ford and Kathleen Wynne both famously faced impromptu visits to their homes). Of course, they often can hold access to them as a chip to obtain such indulgences, and the media, being the shrewd capitalists that they are, know that access is often worth more money than the element of surprise.

As to what she organized, if she really did keep it to her friends as a private affair, we really do need to be concerned about Rooshians interfering in our tiny personal lives. "Thanks be everyone's armed! They're everywhere! They're every where!" But I prefer to think you're wrong on that too: That she actually went public, on Facebook or wherever, hoping to attract some sort of crowd, and did. Not a big one perhaps, but even so, it was big enough to get Russians, And CNN. And c-m's pretend-news source.

And now TERB.
The details of her little Facebook meeting group are covered in the CNN interview. I guess you haven't gotten round to watching it yet. It was a pretty modest level of political involvement.
 
Toronto Escorts