Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

She really isn’t. I understand that she is a right-wing media darling because people expect she will continue to carry water for their causes, but that doesn’t make her neutral.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

She did report on it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-unmasking-list-richard-grenell/
Byline: STEFAN BECKET
Catherine Herridge, Bo Erickson, Olivia Gazis and Stephen Sanchez contributed to this report.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

This comment makes little sense. Why didn't she report it? What does that mean? Why didn't she go on tv with it? Maybe, because CBS does not give her the platform they should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

I totally agree. They are desperate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

She really isn’t. I understand that she is a right-wing media darling because people expect she will continue to carry water for their causes, but that doesn’t make her neutral.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She worked for Faux News for years. Nothing unbiased about her reporting

Find a story - or even a tweet - she has written that is not accurate.

No problem. Found a couple just off top of mind.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/07/17/isis-chattanooga-warning-tweet/

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928?s=20

The Snopes article said that Herridge said that Foxnews is takingn a "hard look" at this tweet. She did not state that the tweet was factual. She used the word "seems." She made it clear that it was early reporting. Most of the Snopes article addressed Hannity.

And, what is wrong with her tweet about Grenell?

If this is the best you can do, she must be one of the best reporters. Certainly, all those people at NYT and CNN who reported the accuracy of the dossier are not anywhere close to her league.

Nuance isn’t your thing, is it? These weren’t the “best I could do.” They were two things that sprung immediately to mind because she’s such a biased journalist.

On the first, you said find an inaccuracy. Why was she speculating at all? That wasn’t factual. Her use of the word “seems” underlies that.

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

I am not going to get any more of these for you because I don’t respond to sea lion trolls. But there are plenty of examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She worked for Faux News for years. Nothing unbiased about her reporting

Find a story - or even a tweet - she has written that is not accurate.

No problem. Found a couple just off top of mind.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/07/17/isis-chattanooga-warning-tweet/

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928?s=20

The Snopes article said that Herridge said that Foxnews is takingn a "hard look" at this tweet. She did not state that the tweet was factual. She used the word "seems." She made it clear that it was early reporting. Most of the Snopes article addressed Hannity.

And, what is wrong with her tweet about Grenell?

If this is the best you can do, she must be one of the best reporters. Certainly, all those people at NYT and CNN who reported the accuracy of the dossier are not anywhere close to her league.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's one of the few reporters I trust with accurate information.

She’s one of the few reporters I trust to be carrying water for the Trump Administration

Then, you don't need to listen to her. You can continue to get your news from Brian Stelter or Jim Acosta or Rachel Maddow.

And can continue to live in your echo chamber listening Rush, Hannity, Herridge, Geobbels, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, etc. who ever is in fashion today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She worked for Faux News for years. Nothing unbiased about her reporting

Find a story - or even a tweet - she has written that is not accurate.

No problem. Found a couple just off top of mind.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/07/17/isis-chattanooga-warning-tweet/

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1260635872271228928?s=20

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's one of the few reporters I trust with accurate information.

She’s one of the few reporters I trust to be carrying water for the Trump Administration

Then, you don't need to listen to her. You can continue to get your news from Brian Stelter or Jim Acosta or Rachel Maddow.

Anonymous wrote:She's one of the few reporters I trust with accurate information.

She’s one of the few reporters I trust to be carrying water for the Trump Administration

She's one of the few reporters I trust with accurate information.

Anonymous wrote:She worked for fox.

She was at fox at the start....a true believer.