{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/1/2017 2:58:54 PM
8
But according to Trump the NY Times is fake news.
And his followers parrot that here often.
So either many of you gloating are hypocrites or this is fake. Which is it?
English
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/donald-trump-boy-scouts-speech/index.html [i]1. "Boy, you have a lot of people here. The press will say it's about 200 people. It looks like about 45,000 people. You set a record today. You set a record." The Charleston Gazette estimated 40,000 people in the crowd -- which is a lot! Not sure there is a "record" for attendance at a Boy Scout Jamboree. Also worth noting from the Gazette: "Press staff handling the event did not allow local media to bring film equipment into the amphitheater."[/i] And here is why people call CNN fake news. That's just one example of the pettiness
-
Well when you're making a post at 11pm and the only sources are left leaning news outlets and Fox News, you don't have much to work with. During the Obama administration, Fox News was considered to be dishonest and untrustworthy, but once and awhile got something right. And for the most part, I agree with that statement. Same thing is happening with outlets like CNN, MsNBC, ABC, NBC, The Guardian, and other left leaning news outlets. Once and awhile they'll be actual journalists instead of activists, but most of the time they'll be more than eager to be activists.
-
My point was it's only fake news when it doesn't fit their narrative. I've seen people post videos from sites like the NY Times and Washington Post and right away it gets dismissed as "lol Washington Post. Fake news" no activism involved on the sites part, no shady editing, just a straightforward clip and still it is called fake news. Another example is I posted something from Politico where Gen Dunford wrote a memo saying there is no ban and treat all personnel with respect. I got a "politico snickers. FAKE NEWS" but how? Did politico lie and make the memo up? It happens too often. People don't even consider the content further than "does it confirm my beliefs I already hold?" If it does they got it right this time, if not then automatically it's fake. I never thought I'd see the day where a paper like the Washington Post is fake (despite breaking things like Watergate and Iran/Contra) yet literal rags like the Washington Times (which was owned by a religious nut who claimed to be the 2nd coming of Jesus) is totally legit.
-
Probably ly because they aren't propagating bullshit
-
[quote]Probably ly because they aren't propagating bullshit[/quote] L O L Son, you better just stop right there. The Washington Times propagates bullshit all the time.
-
Mind linking some?
-
Edited by Catty_Wampus22: 8/3/2017 5:28:10 AMNah you can Google it. Im sure whatever I link you'll find fault in the source. But I'll tell ya a few to look for. - Its founder. He was a crazy cult leader who claimed to be the 2nd coming of Christ. The paper lost money for decades, only reason it didn't tank was he subsidized it with the church money to keep it afloat. Said about the mission of the paper and why he created it “I founded The Washington Times as an expression of my love for America and to fulfill the Will of God, who seeks to establish America in His Providence.” -Floodgate. When Gore announced his candidacy this was the paper that created the Floodgate lie. It was immediately proven to be filled with so many falsehoods, basically the only thing they got right was Al Gore was in a canoe. Yet that didn't stop other conservative outlets running with it. And despite knowing right away the story was incorrect they waited a week or two before saying oops -Dukakis. The journalist who wrote the story actually resigned in protest over this. When Dukakis ran the Washington Times worked on a story he had mental problems and had seen help for it. When a relative was asked they replied "I guess it's possible but I really doubt it" The editors took out everything but the "it's possible", put it in the opening paragraph and titled it "Dukakis kin hints at sessions." - Clarence Thomas. More people resigned over editors changing things. Pushing Thomas' innocence as being attacked by hysterical feminists and media harassment. -Fake Bylines. They have written articles about Palestine using a byline with an Arab name.....problem is this was a lie. They used the name so readers would believe the anti-Palestinian stuff coming from an actual Palestinian. And what's worse is the paper saw nothing wrong with using fake bylines, at one point the paper even claimed they [b][i]HAD[/i][/b] to use a fake name otherwise the real writer's life would have been in danger. -Biofraud/Lynxgate. The paper published 10 articles, 2 editorials and an opinion piece claiming government wildlife regulators had "planted" fake lynx hair in states where there were no lynx, hoping to create new critical habitats that would close national forests to human visitors. They took forever to finally issue a correction and it was even reported two groups that defended the embattled government biologists were contacted by an advertising salesperson from the Times. For $9,450, the groups were told, they could buy full-page advertisements to correct the Times' mistakes.
-
[quote][quote]Probably ly because they aren't propagating bullshit[/quote] L O L Son, you better just stop right there. The Washington Times propagates bullshit all the time.[/quote]The Washington Times preys upon the people not smart enough to distinguish The Washington Post and The New York Times from the rag that is The Washington Times. They hope the readers don't know the difference.
