Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 20, 2017, 10:17:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
99679 Posts in 2354 Topics by 1083 Members
Latest Member: TuhonBill
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Media, Ministry of Truth Issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] Print
Author Topic: Media, Ministry of Truth Issues  (Read 427295 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1850 on: December 20, 2016, 09:38:07 AM »



Was the truck radicalized?

Glad to see the MSM is working hard to rebuild it's credibility!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1851 on: December 21, 2016, 12:55:35 AM »

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-wont-mainstream-media-mention-all.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1852 on: December 21, 2016, 09:40:46 AM »


Because the MSM's job is to hide anything that might hurt dems.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1853 on: December 22, 2016, 09:36:17 AM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1854 on: December 22, 2016, 10:59:31 PM »


Professional journalists, you haters!! Right Bigdog?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8490


« Reply #1855 on: December 28, 2016, 11:10:20 PM »

3 years ago:

Why I Think the GOP Will Have Control in 2017

http://meganmcardle.com/2013/07/12/why-i-think-the-gop-will-have-control-in-2017/amp/

"Getting a third term in the White House just seems to be really difficult.  And Barack Obama is not going to finish with a ground-shaking economic boom.
...
if the GOP takes the White House, I think the chances that they also take the House approach 100%."


Logic had it right.  Polling had it wrong.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1856 on: December 29, 2016, 09:07:21 PM »

Another famous person who read DB forum .  He must have seen my post of 12/11:

*****Well what are these allegations?  That Putin hacked in to both DNC and RNC and only released DNC stuff?
What about the Clinton emails?
I have not heard any thing alleged that disputes the information released was not true though I few Dems are of course making such suggestions.
The concept that Russia may have selectively released information that exposes real corruption is one to ponder.  Because if any of this is true then that basically is what they did.

*They did the job our media refuses to do.  *

Would it have been ok if they just release information revealing corruption on both sides?  Would it not be ok and allow the corruption to go silent?
Just wondering.
Maybe we should just do the same to Putin.  Can we?  Just release the truth.****

Congressman Trent Franks in news today:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congressman-russia-did-what-the-media-should-have-done-by-leaking-emails-214115748.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1857 on: December 30, 2016, 07:36:15 PM »

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/12/30/like-a-boss-iowahawk-expertly-dismantles-medias-election-hacking-b-s/

Paying attention, Bigdog?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1858 on: December 31, 2016, 09:54:45 AM »

http://heatst.com/politics/media-election-hacked/

No, Media, the Election Wasn’t ‘Hacked’ — Stop Saying It Was
Home Politics
By Stephen Miller | 12:40 pm, December 30, 2016
  
When President Obama announced Thursday he was taking retaliatory measures against Russia for its role in cyber-attacks against Democratic Party institutions, the mainstream media pounced.

They listened to the Obama administration describe Russia’s “aggressive harassment,” “malicious cyber activity” and “data disclosure activities,” and quickly seized upon an ominous phrase: “election hacking.” Election hacking took off so fast that the narrative needed an attendant and drink cart accompanying it.


To be perfectly clear, there is zero evidence of actual election hacking, such as the hacking of voting machines, paper ballots or voter fraud on the part of Russia in an effort to install Donald Trump into the White House. There’s no evidence Russia employed a massive cloaking device from a secret submarine in Lake Erie, over the state of Wisconsin, where Hillary Clinton did not campaign once during the general election.


There’s no evidence Russia influenced Clinton campaign operatives to steer SEIU members on the ground away from Michigan. As of yet, there is no proof it was Russia who directed Lena Dunham to campaign in North Carolina, or the aged cast of the West Wing to stump in Ohio. There is no evidence that rural voters in Pennsylvania, whom Mrs. Clinton ignored in the final weeks of the campaign, are actually Russian spies. It is still not known whether Katy Perry is in fact a Russian agent.

If any actual electoral fraud was engineered by Putin and Russia, giving Hillary Clinton almost 3,000,000 more votes than Donald Trump is an amazing cover.

 
But again, none of this occurred on the day Americans went to the polls. The word “hacked,” or variations thereof, does not appear in the White House statement and only once, prefaced by “allegedly” in the DHS statement. There is no evidence of any illicit activities occurring on Election Day.

John Podesta was hacked. The election was not. Podesta’s emails were stolen, not via some sophisticated cyber operation, but through a common email phishing scam, the same ones your grandparents fall for when you catch them writing a big check to that wonderfully nice and thankful Nigerian prince.

There was no forced breach of information, or Russian agents hanging from ceilings at Langley, or stealing files from offices late at night . No one broke into the DNC and stole discs in a daring midnight raid. The information was given willfully and ignorantly by Podesta and his staff. They are the ones responsible.

If the illegal attainment of leaked information is considered “hacking the election,” then file the 2012 election under being hacked as well.

So the question becomes why is our national media intent on spreading misinformation about a “hacked election”? It certainly looks purposeful, if not downright dishonest.

On Yahoo News, a recent purveyor of fake news, the headline initially read: “US Sanctions Russia over vote hacking.” It has since been changed to the more accurate: “US hits Russia for election meddling.” Hopefully this becomes a trend, because plenty of outlets have been repeating the “hacked election” formulation.


"Vote hacking" is the #fakenews headline the media is pushing based on no evidence that Russia actually hacked votes https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-expels-35-russian-intel-agents-over-vote-193213160.html
12:13 PM - 29 Dec 2016
  787 787 Retweets   721 721 likes
CNN blasted out a tweet saying “Obama issues an executive order against 6 Russian individuals and 5 Russian entities over election hacking.”

Politico’s breaking news tweet read: “White House sanctions Russia over election hacks,” as did NPR’s, stating “President Obama orders sanctions against Russian intelligence services officials in response to election hacking.” The New York Times’ headline stated: “U.S. Punishes Russia for Election Hacking, Ejecting Operatives.”

Tom Winter of NBC News tweeted out the name of an alleged suspect wanted by the FBI for his role in the “election hacking.”


NBC News: Documents & officials say Evgeniy Bogachev who is alleged to be part of election hacking has been wanted by the FBI in other cases
12:23 PM - 29 Dec 2016
  629 629 Retweets   444 444 likes
Matthew Dowd of ABC News, in a not-so-subtle jab at Donald Trump, tweeted: “What is more problematic for US national security: few thousand Mexicans coming across the border for work, or Russia hacking our election?

What is more problematic for US national security: few thousand Mexicans coming across the border for work, or Russia hacking our election?
12:42 PM - 29 Dec 2016
  193 193 Retweets   456 456 likes
It’s worth nothing, ABC News is now assisting Facebook in fact-checking newsfeeds for fake news, as is the Associated Press, which also reported on Obama’s “retaliation for election hacking.”

News organizations obsessed with a sudden new found mission of loyal fact checking and accuracy when it comes to a Donald Trump presidency apparently are letting these rules slide when it pertains to the election that put him in the White House. Whether intentional or not, the media’s misreporting appears to be influencing the public’s perception of events.

According to a study published in the Washington Post, almost one half of Hillary Clinton voters now believe that Russia hacked the election itself, specifically vote totals, despite the Obama Administration stating no such hack occurred. It’s not hard to guess why so many might have gotten that impression — they’ve been reading about a “hacked election” for weeks.

Is this a purposeful effort on behalf of mainstream outlets and the people charged with relaying information to undermine a Donald Trump presidency? Who knows? It might just be that they are using “election hacking” as shorthand for “Hey man, maybe don’t click suspicious viagra links in your gmail.”

If media outlets want to continue to sound the alarm about “fake news,” they should be more concerned with accuracy in their reporting. This looks sloppy, biased and, worst of all, malicious. On the plus side, the Obama administration should be applauded for finally coming around to the threat Russia poses even if it only took his party losing an election to do so.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1859 on: January 02, 2017, 07:04:27 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43?m193yjqmfmyy3z0k9

It was only in the last one to two years any media called any politicians' lies - lies.  I even recall posting I wish that they would start using the "L" word when it is clearly that.

After 8 yrs of lying Democrats and every single media person avoiding the work "lie" it become very frustrating.  Where was Huff post during 8 yrs of the lying Obama? Or the 25 yrs of lying Clintons?

Now, rather suddenly , it is imperative we call politicians (Republicans) liars.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1860 on: January 02, 2017, 01:24:15 PM »

 By Gerald F. Seib
Jan. 2, 2017 12:23 p.m. ET
249 COMMENTS

Is it method or madness?

That is the question perplexing the world as President-elect Donald J. Trump continues his unorthodox campaign-season communications habits. He tweets, apparently randomly. He wades into subjects that he could easily avoid. He picks fights.

It is a risky approach. By weighing in on all sorts of matters large and small, Mr. Trump already may be in danger of devaluing the most valuable asset any president has, which is the bully pulpit. Will any individual message from the new president have the impact he wants if it is lost in the static of running commentary?

It’s also hard to argue that a presidential communication can have the depth, texture and subtlety often required when it comes in 140 characters.

Yet it also would be a mistake to dismiss Mr. Trump’s transition-season interventions as random musings. That was a mistake his opponents made consistently through a long presidential campaign.

In fact, there seem to be specific objectives behind many of Mr. Trump’s seemingly scattershot missives and comments. Often, say those who know him, he is posturing or positioning in pursuit of broader goals. He doesn’t mind roiling the waters in the process—and, as a consequence, some of what he says isn’t to be taken literally.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who speaks regularly with Mr. Trump and is developing a lecture series and book examining Trumpism, suggests the president-elect is in this regard similar to Franklin Roosevelt, who sometimes seemed to cultivate chaos in preparing the ground for his initiatives. Mr. Gingrich also predicts the style won’t change:  “My advice is to relax. It’s going to be this way for eight years.”

So what might Mr. Trump be trying to accomplish? There are three likely goals:

He is positioning himself for a negotiation or a deal. Mr. Trump has said that a good way to understand how he operates is to read his book, “The Art of the Deal,” which describes his approach to business negotiations. And in any negotiation, the opening posture isn’t the same as the bottom-line position.
More From Gerald F. Seib

    Ten Red-State Democrats May Hold the Balance of Power Dec. 26, 2016
    Why a Russian Hacking Inquiry Is in Trump’s Best Interests Dec. 19, 2016
    Listen Closely: Trump Proposes Big Mideast Strategy Shift Dec. 12, 2016
    Trump Shuffles the Ideological Deck Dec. 5, 2016
    Group Launches Effort to Protect Moderate Candidates Dec. 4, 2016

The best example may be the way Mr. Trump has approached China, a country with which he figures to have plenty of tough negotiations on trade and military maneuvering in the South China Sea. His opening bid came when decided to accept a call from the president of Taiwan, a step that was sure to rile the government in Beijing. He then followed with a series of tweets saying that the Chinese don’t ask for permission to take steps that irritate the U.S., implying they shouldn’t expect the new president to worry too much about keeping them happy either.

“That was the surest signal to the Chinese that things are going to be different,” says Mr. Gingrich.

Then, when the Chinese navy snatched an American underwater drone from the waters of the South China Sea, Mr. Trump, seemingly unprompted, tweeted out a message to the Chinese that the drone wasn’t that important and that they could just keep it—even as the U.S. Navy was scrambling to try to retrieve a valuable piece of sensitive equipment. The apparent goal was to lower the value of the drone in Chinese eyes, lest they think they could use it as a bargaining chip with the new president.

He is seeking to control the agenda. Early-morning tweets have a way of establishing what everyone else will be compelled to talk about that day. They also have had a way of upstaging the man who still happens to be the president, Barack Obama, annoying the White House and potentially creating confusion abroad about who really is in charge.

Thus did Mr. Trump tweet that the U.S. should veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the West Bank before that resolution was even formally debated, and that the U.S. should be prepared to enlarge its nuclear-weapons arsenal soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested Russia might do the same. In both cases, the question immediately became what the new president thought as much as what the current president might do.

He is creating rabbits for others to chase. For two weeks Mr. Trump nursed along the idea that he might pick former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as his secretary of state. Ultimately, he didn’t—but he sparked a string of news stories suggesting he was reaching out to embrace former enemies, and distracting from less beneficial topics such as potential conflicts of interest in his nascent administration.

Certainly there is danger in leaving the world unsure which messages to take literally, and in trying to handle subjects as sensitive as nuclear-weapons strategy on the fly. But it’s also likely Mr. Trump knows exactly what he is doing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1861 on: January 03, 2017, 10:02:12 AM »

Russia Today is asserting:

"WaPo refuses to add disclosure about $600M CIA contract.  In 2013, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million. Only 4 months later, he was awarded a $600 million contract with the CIA. So the CIA has a direct connection to the Washington Post, the paper of record in our nation's capital, but they refuse to add a disclosure to stories they write about the CIA"

Is this true?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1862 on: January 03, 2017, 10:59:51 AM »

This is true.  From Huffington Post no less going back to 2014:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/the-cia-amazon-bezos-and_b_4559317.html

Of course the Huff Compost would be silent about this now as it flies in the face of its' and the other composts political agenda.

I find it very disturbing to think this guy Bezos is or has built a "private" cloud for the CIA.

Egadz.  We are supposed to trust this egomaniac who is jealous of Trump?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 12:10:19 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1863 on: January 03, 2017, 12:02:53 PM »

Fk!!!  Truly I was righter than I realized when I began calling our MSM "the pravdas"!  Again we get more truth from the Russians!  

WTF?!?   angry angry angry


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#2484f597291e
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 12:11:02 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1864 on: January 03, 2017, 12:14:09 PM »

Third post of day

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/business/media/megyn-kelly-nbc-fox-news.html?emc=edit_na_20170103&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1865 on: January 03, 2017, 07:42:03 PM »

http://fair.org/uncategorized/amazon-wilkileaks-the-washington-post-and-the-cia/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1866 on: January 04, 2017, 07:22:23 AM »

I for one will not miss Kelly from FN.   
Will we see her tru colors on NBC?  More feminism or Trump bashing or more Leftist leaning tendencies .  I don't know.  But I won't be watching NBC any more than now which is essentially not at all.

OTOH I am not sure an unabashed, "no matter what" , Trump supporter taking her place is good or not. 


http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/01/03/report-fox-news-considering-pro-trump-conservative-woman-fill-megyn-kellys-timeslot/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1867 on: January 06, 2017, 02:23:42 AM »

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/breaking-tucker-carlson-replace-megyn-kelly-fox-news
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1868 on: January 07, 2017, 11:46:36 AM »

Media purposely distorts Trumps firing ambassadors.  Obama fired all the Bush ambassadors and I don't remember hearing a single peep about.  These are not lifetime appointments.  Their shift is up.  Go home.  No controversy here.  I don't know how we can defeat the msm CNN ha become the worst of bunch. .
   

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/us-ambassadors-obama-trump/index.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1869 on: January 07, 2017, 12:33:41 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/allahu-akbar-chanting-mob-sets-alight-germanys-oldest-church-shocking-story-if-it-were-true/2017/01/06/30470f58-d36a-11e6-9651-54a0154cf5b3_story.html?utm_term=.b8b6359dc98b

For the record, I have been burned more than once on FB for citing Breitbart.  I am pretty fg irked.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1870 on: January 07, 2017, 12:43:21 PM »


I' d vett everything from Brietbart, it's as untrustworthy as the Washington Post.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8490


« Reply #1871 on: January 07, 2017, 02:12:39 PM »

"I'd vett everything from Brietbart, it's as untrustworthy as the Washington Post."


Or the NY Times.  It's a good comparison.  There was Breitbart the man, deceased, a very aggressive investigative journalist.  Breitbart the website is an agenda driven outlet just as eager as Wash Post and NYT to advance their narrative at the expense of accuracy.  And then there is the double standard.  When NYT or Wash Post gets it wrong they just run a correction - or not.  When Breitbart gets it wrong they are forever deplorable and unworthy of ever citing again even when right.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8490


« Reply #1872 on: January 09, 2017, 02:08:15 PM »

Media and The Left are overlapping threads.  Looking back at this from the Huffington Post never gets old.   )


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-78-percent-chance-50-senate-seats_us_57b8a525e4b0b51733a3cda0

Republicans Set To Lose Senate Control
Democrats have a 78 percent chance of getting 50-plus seats in November, the HuffPost Senate model shows.

Most models give the Democratic ticket of Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) at least an 80 percent chance of winning the presidency. That would make Kaine the tie-breaking vote in the Senate as the vice president, shifting Democrats back into the majority by a 51-50 split.
--------------------------------------------------------

Tim Kaine is becoming the trivia question no one can answer and Mike Pence the 46th President of the United States, with 80% certainty, lol.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14260


« Reply #1873 on: January 10, 2017, 08:23:48 PM »

Remember, they have layers of fact checkers and editors!


http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/10/washington-post-reporter-doubles-down-on-fake-news-about-guns/


 Washington Post Reporter Doubles Down On Fake News About Guns

Instead of just admitting and correcting a simple reporting error about the .22 LR rifle caliber, Washington Post reporter Mike Rosenwald doubled down on his ignorance.
January 10, 2017 By Sean Davis

It’s bad enough when a newspaper like the Washington Post publishes fake news, but it’s even worse when its own reporters double down on their ignorance and refuse to correct the record when blatant journalistic errors are brought to their attention.

Washington Post reporter Mike Rosenwald published a lengthy attack on efforts to remove suppressors–mufflers for firearms that can reduce the report of a gunshot by approximately 30 decibels–from the list of highly regulated items covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Although actual firearms can be purchased easily following an instant background check, the process of legally purchasing a suppressor, which is not a firearm and is incapable of shooting any projectiles, can take more than a year and cost hundreds of dollars above and beyond the price of the actual suppressor. Hearing protection advocates say the suppressor regulations not only make little sense, but they also lead to the infliction of needless hearing damage on those who regularly use firearms.

Instead of providing an accurate reflection of the suppressor debate and the facts surrounding it, Mike Rosenwald chose to glibly dismiss the legitimate claims and concerns of those who actually understand how firearms and suppressors work while elevating the specious claims of gun controllers who oppose any efforts to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase and use suppressors for hearing protection. The most shocking assertion by Rosenwald, and one which cast significant doubt on the rest of his reporting, was that a .22 LR rifle–far and away the smallest and weakest readily available rifle caliber on the market–was actually a “high-powered rifle”:

    But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic ­.22LR.

Firearms experts reacted with shock that a reporter for the Washington Post would make such an outrageous and obviously absurd claim, and that the claim would somehow survive editorial scrutiny:

The .22 LR caliber is so weak that it’s considered cruel and inhumane to hunt anything but varmints with it. Just to give you some perspective, in the picture below showing dozens of different rifle cartridges side by side, the .22 LR round is the tiny one at the very far left of the top row:

rifle-caliber-comparison

International gun control advocates don’t even go so far as to claim that .22 LR is “high-powered.” GunPolicy.org, a global gun control outfit that was run by the University of Sydney, says the term “high-powered rifle” is “used to differentiate larger-calibre (centrefire), factory-made repeating long guns from single-shot shotguns, .22 calibre rimfire rifles, and home-made firearms.”

Rather than being a “high-powered” round, .22 LR is so low-powered that it’s what many parents and instructors use when teaching young children how to shoot. That doesn’t mean it’s harmless, but there is simply no planet on which .22 LR comes even close to resembling a “high-powered” rifle cartridge. It is a nonsensical claim that instantly discredits anyone who makes it. But rather than admit error and issue a correction, Mike Rosenwald doubled down. And he doubled down in the most absurd way possible: by mocking anyone who corrected him, and then by refusing to provide any source or data to back up his absurd claim:

Nothing says journalistic integrity and trustworthy reporting like making an absurd claim, mocking everyone who called it absurd, refusing to provide any source information to back up the claim, and then telling everyone else to do the reporter’s research for him.

Unfortunately for Rosenwald, it appears that Google is actually too “high-powered” for him to use and fully understand. By his own veiled admission, Rosenwald apparently based his claim that .22 LR is a “high-powered rifle” on the fact that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) sometimes utilize the caliber in limited circumstances (there’s no evidence of any other modern military on the planet issuing .22 LR rifles for any purpose beyond varmint control or plinking). Had Rosenwald followed his own advice to use Google to verify simple facts, he would’ve learned that IDF sometimes issues .22 LR rifles in extremely limited circumstances not for combat purposes, but to kill small animals and injure violent protesters. The only reason the IDF turned to the .22 LR in the first place was because it wanted something less lethal than the standard military-issue 5.56mm round and which could be deployed at greater distances than non-lethal rubber bullets. Nothing says “high-powered” like a rifle that’s only used to injure protesters, amirite?

So to review: Washington Post reporter Mike Rosenwald made an outrageous claim with no basis in reality, mocked everyone who pointed out that his claim was absurd, doubled down on his ignorance, made another outrageous claim to support his original outrageous claim, and then promptly stepped on a rake because he was too lazy to do the simple research he snidely demanded that everyone else do on his behalf.

Earlier this week, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote a long article demanding that conservatives stop using the term “fake news” to criticize coverage from outlets like the Washington Post. I’ve got a better idea: we’ll stop using the term “fake news,” especially fake news about guns, when the Washington Post stops publishing it.

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6572


« Reply #1874 on: January 13, 2017, 06:42:17 AM »

How about this CNN and the rest of the pompous phonies:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/12/politico-ukrainian-officials-election/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38673


« Reply #1875 on: January 16, 2017, 01:14:54 AM »

Ukraine thread too please.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 1011


« Reply #1876 on: January 16, 2017, 06:42:26 PM »

Trump, master of media combat, turned this term around on them - now all of a sudden they want to "retire" the term.  Cowards.

www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265466/media-will-pay-price-its-fake-news-daniel-greenfield

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!