Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 11/17/2024 at 9:37 PM, B-Man said:


 

 

@Tiberius was concerned with DJTs decision to forgo an interview with the Leslie Stahl’s 60 Minutes.  I surmised, perhaps incorrectly, that Tibsy had a secret crush on her, but he seemed to think it reflected poorly on Trump and might be a factor in the voting booth.  
 

Either way, I thought strategically it made sense as the format is tired, old, and the producers have a tendency toward deceptive editing.  Full disclosure, I thought Harris would prevail in the election, but I thought Trump handled both 60 Mins and the request for a 3rd debate with the Dems correctly. 
 

This clip reinforces my belief. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

This is pretty good! See, Babylon Bee, you can do it when you really try.

It’s true that I give you a hard time for not being funny, at all, but I really need to give you credit for coming up with the title of this thread. Always amusing. Well done!

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
13 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Complete mockery of the reliable media.

 

Love. It.

 

 

Some rich people seem interested in going in on this. It could really happen..

 

 

 

Posted
On 4/24/2024 at 12:00 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

Let's go back in time. Summer 2016. Trump opines on that Leader of the Free Press, the National Enquirer:

 

"There was a picture on the front page of the National Enquirer, which does have credibility," Trump said to a room of volunteers and staffers in Cleveland, adding that the tabloid "should be very respected."

In May, Trump had said to Fox News, "You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot....Right prior to his [Kennedy's] being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it."

The story Trump referenced had appeared in the National Enquirer and was immediately debunked. The Washington Post said Trump had made "a ridiculous claim." Politifact concurred, saying that the photograph was "too degraded to offer much confidence," and experts it consulted "consider Trump's claim implausible at best and ridiculous at worst."

 

So now we know that Trump and that "credible" supermarket checkout rag were in cahoots, planting and killing stories all in service of Trump and at the expense of his competitors.

 

Ted Cruz was incensed in 2016, but now he's ... weirdly quiet. Not a peep out of him since it was revealed at Trump's trial that the Enquirer just photoshopped Cruz's father into a photo of Oswald. The manly Senator just bends over and takes it now. Maybe he wants to be Attorney General.

 

Cruz figured it all out in 2016:

 

“The CEO of the National Enquirer is an individual named David *****,” Cruz said at a [2016] campaign event. “Well, David is good friends with Donald Trump. In fact, the National Enquirer has endorsed Donald Trump, has said he must be president.” The senator lamented that his young daughters would someday “read these lies, these attacks that Donald and his henchmen, that his buddies at the National Enquirer spread” about their father.

After the tabloid went after Cruz’s father, and Trump seized on the story, the senator also told reporters that the future president was a “pathological liar,” adding in reference to Trump, “He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth.”

 

The mainstream media - and Cruz himself - nailed it at the time. It was a preposterous lie, and this time planted by Trump and his "alt media" supporters. 

I would agree that MSM is better than gutter press publications but it's a close call and in reality neither are truth tellers. They are both influencers, just that they have different audiences and agendas. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
On 11/20/2024 at 11:48 AM, K D said:

PSX_20241120_114816.thumb.jpg.232e6b2f3d64bc234971c3793e8e4bd3.jpg

 

The Snopes one is spot on but could apply to the fact checking process for any mainstream media outlet. Two weeks before the election, the fact checkers tried to say that the underfunding of FEMA to illegals was proven false. Why?  Because a literal check was not written to "illegal immigrants' by FEMA, as if the concepts of budgeting and limited resources were completely foreign to them.

 

The concept of fact checking makes sense when used correctly, but the way that it was used and abused by the mainstream media turned it into another weapon. 

Edited by dgrochester55
×
×
  • Create New...