PrintSmith wrote: Your sources are misrepresenting reality HA . . . on a regular, consistent and ongoing basis via their biased "reporting" methods where they sprinkle in just enough information to get you to swallow down the whole enchilada without ever pausing to give it a good chew first.
LMAO....and FoxNews .. the epitome of truth and integrity? OMG....they all do it, it is just a question of 'TO WHAT DEGREE?" I do,however,admire your deep dive of details.....
And once again, the point sails over your head like the ISS . . . I give this level of scrutiny to all of the material that I consume, not just Politico, CNN, or ProPublica; every item I read on FoxNews gets the same degree of skepticism, the same examination for bias that you, and others who are currently choosing to remain silent, reserve for what you have decided are "unreliable" sources of information.
Politico is a serially unreliable source of information because they sprinkle in some relevant facts with a lot of spin on top of it to give it the appearance of accuracy, as my "deep dive" on this particular link of yours has demonstrated. There's not a single worthwhile point made by the author of the piece because not a single one of her "facts" are accurate within the context in which she offers them. It's an ideologically driven piece published in an ideologically driven source . . . nothing more, or less, than blatant propaganda trying to disguise itself as relevant information for the masses to consume.
The New York Times published a piece about the backlash from such fact-checker organizations headlined, "Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False." The article said, "Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked."
"Fact-checkers fact-check claim that fact-checkers are the problem. Real headline from the NY Times," civil liberties attorney Laura Powell noted. "How can anyone produce satire when the legacy media has become so ridiculous?"
This is the what the "Gray Lady", the receptacle of "All the news that's fit to print", has become . . . a propaganda outlet, a parody outlet that shares space with the Babylon Bee.
Rick wrote: HA, the point that you've consistently missed for years is that you shouldn't trust any source, especially if you are only looking at sources you tend to always agree with. Nobody here has ever suggested that FOX is all knowing and always gets every story right, but they have gotten a whole lot right when it comes to the last 8 years. You can't name one source of yours that was right on the Russia hoax, Jan 6th, Biden's mental condition, Kamala's ineptness, the weaponized DOJ and FBI, and pretty much every phony Trump "crime".
Please, name your most trusted source and I promise you I can prove that that source is hot garbage when it comes to being objective journalists. You're not a free thinker, you just think you are.
[/b]
DID U READ THE POST ON THE MOLE AND THE UNDERGROUND MILITIA? (YOUR VIEW OF THE VERY LONG NARRATIVE GIVEN TO THE REPORTER OF PRO PUBLICA?) iF U DO NOT THINK THAT
SOURCE IS VALID......we r screwed.....what lies beneath is the theme of the year JMO
I answered that post that was about an anonymous guy who infiltrated anonymous militias and warnings were given by anonymous “experts”. Did I miss something that contains verifiable facts?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: I answered that post that was about an anonymous guy who infiltrated anonymous militias and warnings were given by anonymous “experts”. Did I miss something that contains verifiable facts?
WELL, APPARENTLY U DID....THEY WERE NOT ANONYMOUS...VERIFIABLE ORGS AND NAMES OF
THOSE WITHIN....reporter did his fact checking and verified those ...some were not reachable (did not respond)......the real question is......do u think it was fake news?
Without names and verification, this is a worthless story. Haven’t you learned from the last 8 years not to believe everything you read, just because someone wrote an article? No proof, no names, no story. Simple lesson.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
