Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(12-20-2016, 01:02 PM)Daitengu Wrote: Meh ... been use media pukes as ballistics test dummies since early 60's in vietnam ......

It would feel a little easier if I could say I believed the 'fix was in' but when I see these
featureless idiots following the auto-cue, I find myself wondering if knob-heads such as
these weren't deliberately picked!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
(12-20-2016, 12:44 PM)BIAD Wrote: I agree with you and with all respect, that's where we and the Politicians-plus mainstream media, seem
to part company!

There's been hardly the mention of the simple ethics of the information being brought to light. A set of
emails that display an hypocrisy of persons who seek high office and even higher benefits, have been
leaked by an unknown entity and the information revealed shows a wide-scale corruption in a system
that is meant to serve those who're are the butt of the hypocrisy.

Yet, the media focus is on who brought the messages out into the open and the narrative is kept there
instead of discussing the double standards in political life. The brazenness of it!

I would suggest that the news outlets that are staying clear of talking about the email contents are
either too stupid to see the bigger picture or don't wish to for reasons that may be less than noble.

In my view, it seems like a pantomime, a mocking pompous display of a group that cares little for
the masses they pretend to serve. The word 'rigged' doesn't cover it.

Precisely. It's a case of the Progressives doing what they do best - sleight of hand and misdirection. They are saying "oh look - a butterfly!" whilst picking our pockets and thieving our liberty.

" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
This thread is slightly old, but I couldn't find the others that it might fit in, so what better place to put it than under "fake news fake out"?

Quote:CNN’s trusted anonymous sources got it wrong once again, forcing the outlet make a retraction after a statement from James Comey revealed that their original story was based on a false narrative.

The “Russiagate” hysteria is set to reach a new height on Thursday, when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of their investigation into connections between Russia and the Trump 2016 campaign.
While Comey’s name has dominated mainstream media headlines, his actual statements have forced one major outlet to admit that its trusted “anonymous” sources had the wrong information.

On Wednesday morning, CNN reported on Twitter that in his testimony, Comey will dispute President Trump’s blanket claim that he was told he wasn’t under investigation.”

However, CNN’s own claim appeared to be disputed by Comey, himself. Comey released a statement detailing the prepared remarks for his opening statement on Wednesday. In it, Comey said he told President Trump on three separate occasions that he was not the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

Quote:“I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

Following the release of Comey’s prepared testimony, CNN changed course. The title on its story about Comey’s hearing was changed to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction.”

The same anonymous sources who before told CNN that Comey was sure to dispute Trump’s claim that he was under investigation, now apparently said, Comey is not likely to offer his conclusion about whether the President obstructed justice regarding the agency’s Russia investigation.”

Quote:In testimony, Comey will dispute President Trump’s blanket claim that he was told he wasn’t under investigation
— CNN (@CNN) June 7, 2017

Following the changes, CNN did preface the updated version of their story with a “correction,” which acknowledged that Comey did assure Trump multiple times that he was not under investigation, and Comey does not appear to have plans to say otherwise.

“CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.”

This is not the first time CNN has landed in hot water for promoting the essence of its favorite blanket term—fake news. In fact, earlier this week, The Free Thought Project reported that CNN was caught staging a fake scene to propagandize viewers.

While there were numerous Muslim groups standing in solidarity with the victims of a recent terrorist attack in London, CNN opted to stage its own scene. Instead of finding an ongoing demonstration, the outlet worked with police to set up its own solidarity protest, which looked like it was straight from the scene of a movie.

CNN is also the same network that warned viewers in October 2016 about the dangers of reading documents published by WikiLeaks. As Anchor Chris Cuomo explained to viewers, “Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents.”

“It’s different for the media, so everything you learn about this [latest Wikileaks’ revelations] you’re learning from us,” Cuomo said.

The use of anonymous sources in journalism was once a sacred custom for the purpose of releasing vital information, while protecting the source’s identity from harm. However, CNN’s latest retraction, which was based on claims made by an alleged anonymous source, serves as a reminder that the tradition has been used and abused by the mainstream media.

When the same fire surrounding the idea that the Russian government intentionally influenced the U.S. election in 2016, was fueled by claims made by vague, anonymous sources promoted by the mainstream media, is it any wonder that those alleged sources would follow the same script?

After being caught in so many lies and "fake news" stories, you would think people would stop watching them, but the left is so brainwashed, they have to go where they can feed their "fake beliefs" because they would have a melt down to accept that they have been wrong all along.   tinysure

CNN Actually Admits They Published Fake News, Forced to Issue Retraction

Could it be said that CNN intentionally influenced the U.S. election in 2016 with their fake biased news?
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
(06-09-2017, 07:47 PM)BIAD Wrote: Could it be said that CNN intentionally influenced the U.S. election in 2016 with their fake biased news?

I believe it could... 100%.  They should be the one's on trial for what they accused Russia of doing.   tinysure

CNN caught saying the Russia/Trump stories are just for ratings.   tinyok 

Quote:Published on Jun 26, 2017

In the recent video footage obtained by Project Veritas, John Bonifield a Sr. Producer at CNN, admits to several beliefs that are in direct conflict with the official CNN narrative that Trump has colluded with Russia, and that Russia has interfered with the 2016 election. Bonifield expresses clear doubts that there is a fire behind the Russia smoke, stating, “I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime.” He also confirms suspicions that CNN staff is ideologically biased against Trump, stating, “I know a lot of people don’t like him and they’d like to see him get kicked out of office…”

...And in case anyone wants more from the above video Mystic posted...

[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
This is a rather old thread, but the Fake News I'm about to post still fits, so...  

The article is rather long, so I'm only sharing some of it.  Read the whole story here:

Quote:[Image: GettyImages-75931466.jpg]
Oxford University / Getty Images BY: [url=]Elizabeth Harrington Follow @LizWFB
February 9, 2018 5:00 am
An Oxford University study being spread by mainstream news outlets that claims Trump supporters share the most fake news is itself fake news.
Researchers at the Computational Propaganda Project, who are the recipients of over $200,000 in taxpayer funding, spent "several years" developing its "junk news" list, which is actually full of the most popular conservative websites on the internet.

Websites included on the researchers' "watch list" of propaganda news outlets includes the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Caller, National Review, and the Drudge Report, which is the seventh most highly visited media publication in the United States.
Contrary to the claim that conservatives are sharing the most fake news, the study proves nothing other than finding conservatives tend to share conservative media online.

Philip N. Howard, Vidya Narayanan, Bence Kollanyi, and Lisa-Maria Neudert of Oxford University wrote the six-page study, along with Vlad Barash and John Kelly who work for Graphika, a social media startup that "provides the context needed to make strategic business decisions."
Oxford publicized its results Tuesday with a provocative press release that declared, "Trump supporters and extreme right ‘share widest range of junk news.'"

The sweeping claim that Trump supporters circulate more fake news than "all other political audience groups combined" was based on analysis of three months of tweets.

"We find that the political landscape is strikingly divided across ideological lines when it comes to who is sharing junk news," said Neudert. "We find that Trump supporters, hard conservatives and right-wing groups are circulating more junk news than other groups."

The purpose of Oxford's Computational Propaganda Project is to analyze how social media can be used to "manipulate public opinion."
Media outlets seized on the study. The Huffington Post reported, "Trump supporters consume and share the most fake news." "Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study," said the Guardian. "Trump supporters share the most ‘junk' news, conspiracy theories: study," wrote Salon. "Trump supporters spread the majority of phony news on social media," according to Mother Jones. The Financial Times: "Hard right dominates use of fake US news, Oxford study finds."

Newsweek, the Week, and the Independent covered the study in the same way.
None of the news articles explain how the researchers defined "junk news," including a Washington Post analysis that used the study to argue there is a "Trumpian threat to democracy." Post analyses are intended to be "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data."
The analysis does not include any reference to what websites are actually on the "junk news" list, but spreads the same deceptive claim that "Trump supporters shared the widest range of junk news."

The Post wrote that the study was based on "91 sources of propaganda" from "across the political spectrum" that are "deliberately misleading or masquerading as authentic reporting."

The Post stated that the study "restores a bit of clarity to what ‘fake news' actually represents."

In fact, an analysis of the "junk news" list reveals numerous flaws. The list was not derived from "across the political spectrum," but full of mainstream conservative news and commentary sites, with no mainstream sites from the left.

If we accept the Oxford 'Study', then this is another example of Fake News and everyone
opposing the narrative in the video are also Trump supporters!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)