- — Rebecca Sinderbrand (@sinderbrand)Tue, Mar 11 2014 15:53:56
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:43:28
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:46:15Good for @AP! "He denied that the CIA ‘hacked' into the computer network in remarks on Tuesday but did not address the question of a search"
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:48:18NYT gets suckered: Brennan "denied Ms. Feinstein’s assertions on Tuesday. 'Nothing could be further from the truth’” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/cia-accused-of-illegally-searching-computers-used-by-senate-committee.html?hp …
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:49:59Reuters sticks with pure stenography (poorly serving its readers): "Brennan on Tuesday denied the allegations on computer hacking."
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:51:43WSJ buys into it: "Mr. Brennan rejected Ms. Feinstein's accusations that the CIA hacked into Senate computers.” http://goo.gl/4t3Om8
- — Dan Froomkin (@froomkin)Tue, Mar 11 2014 18:53:14LAT nails it! "offered carefully worded remarks that did not dispute the actions Feinstein said had taken place…” http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-feinstein-cia-spying-charge-20140311,0,2272803.story#axzz2vgKO6TOZ …
It's a test: Which media outlets bought Brennan's non-denial denial? And which fought back?
As soon as I heard CIA Director John Brennan try to reframe Sen. Dianne Feinstein's charge that the CIA searched congressional computers as "hacking" I knew 2 things: 1) He was being intentionally misleading, and 2) It would work. I was actually pleasantly surprised a few outlets didn't fall for it.
byDan Froomkin593 Views