• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You Stupid Stupid B*tch’: Roger Stone Goes On Profane Twitter Freak Out


Although the Daily Mail‘s article cited nothing more than an unverifiable “source” for all that it reported, numerous new outlets including the Daily Caller, Fox News, Newsmax, and Hollywood Life picked up the story, citing in turn only the tabloid.​

And that my friends is how the right wing echo chamber works. And has been working like this for some time.
 
Although the Daily Mail‘s article cited nothing more than an unverifiable “source” for all that it reported, numerous new outlets including the Daily Caller, Fox News, Newsmax, and Hollywood Life picked up the story, citing in turn only the tabloid.​

And that my friends is how the right wing echo chamber works. And has been working like this for some time.

The Trump rule of journalism, embraced by his lemmings on the right: The media is fake news, and not to be believed. Until it tells me something I want to hear.
 
The Trump rule of journalism, embraced by his lemmings on the right: The media is fake news, and not to be believed. Until it tells me something I want to hear.

I've seen Fox do this crap before where they pick up a story by some fringe paper so that they have deniability and don't apologize because they didn't report it originally. They just turn the volume of such bogus stories up to 11 and get their base all riled up on lies.
 
That's what I thought. One site. My own personal fact check found the Snopes piece stacked against dozens of others who reported otherwise.
:lamo


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by poweRob
Although the Daily Mail‘s article cited nothing more than an unverifiable “source” for all that it reported, numerous new outlets including the Daily Caller, Fox News, Newsmax, and Hollywood Life picked up the story, citing in turn only the tabloid.

And that my friends is how the right wing echo chamber works. And has been working like this for some time."

One post up.

:lamo
 
:lamo


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by poweRob
Although the Daily Mail‘s article cited nothing more than an unverifiable “source” for all that it reported, numerous new outlets including the Daily Caller, Fox News, Newsmax, and Hollywood Life picked up the story, citing in turn only the tabloid.

And that my friends is how the right wing echo chamber works. And has been working like this for some time."

One post up.

:lamo


But wait, isn't this precisely how the left's alt-left MSM partners report the news?

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

"....multiple sources tell CNN."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/anonymous-sources-are-absolutely-killing-trumps-presidency/?utm_term=.0366a57658d7

The story relies on unnamed Justice Department officials.​

But, but, but......

:2rofll:

Goose/gander lollipops
 
ocean deflector shields up (after showing his "one site" lol) and pivot pete turns to comparing CNN to infowars.

What entertainment!
 
But wait, isn't this precisely how the left's alt-left MSM partners report the news?

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

"....multiple sources tell CNN."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/anonymous-sources-are-absolutely-killing-trumps-presidency/?utm_term=.0366a57658d7

The story relies on unnamed Justice Department officials.​

But, but, but......

:2rofll:

Goose/gander lollipops

The difference here is that when CNN claims something from an anonymous source or whatnot it is usually completely true or mostly true. They're far from perfect but there is still an element of credibility with what they say. Now contrast that with The Daily Caller or Infowars where they have a record of just flat out making stuff up without an ounce of evidence to back it up and they do it on a daily basis. Trump has now aligned himself with completely unreliable sources of information so his credibility is dirt.
 
The difference here is that when CNN claims something from an anonymous source or whatnot it is usually completely true or mostly true. They're far from perfect but there is still an element of credibility with what they say. Now contrast that with The Daily Caller or Infowars where they have a record of just flat out making stuff up without an ounce of evidence to back it up and they do it on a daily basis. Trump has now aligned himself with completely unreliable sources of information so his credibility is dirt.

Right. "The difference here....."

So the difference is the left's unverifiable and unidentifiable sources are not to be questioned, while any source that doesn't support the agenda is not credible.

Credibility with the left's MSM partners disappeared long ago. That is a shame, but that's the cemetery they buried themselves in.
 
Right. "The difference here....."

So the difference is the left's unverifiable and unidentifiable sources are not to be questioned, while any source that doesn't support the agenda is not credible.

Credibility with the left's MSM partners disappeared long ago. That is a shame, but that's the cemetery they buried themselves in.

Look, I know you guys have trouble separating fact from fiction but the thing is... you can tell how things are by observing them over time. CNN publishes information that usually ends up being highly truthful. The Daily Caller and Infowars publish information that usually ends up being complete bull****. Obama has a record of saying things that end up being highly truthful. Trump already has a record of saying things that end up being complete bull****.

Do you see a pattern here?
 
Look, I know you guys have trouble separating fact from fiction but the thing is... you can tell how things are by observing them over time. CNN publishes information that usually ends up being highly truthful. The Daily Caller and Infowars publish information that usually ends up being complete bull****. Obama has a record of saying things that end up being highly truthful. Trump already has a record of saying things that end up being complete bull****.

Do you see a pattern here?

Right. "Usually" and "highly" are the operative words.

It would seem your "observation" about separation of fact from fiction requires a significant amount of assumption, doesn't it?

Can't speak for others, but I can tell how things are by observing how the usual retorts inevitably require mention of Infowars, or other such sources. Sources I certainly don't use. When I see that kind of response, "knee jerk reaction" is the first thing that comes to mind.

One day, the left just might realize there are credible sources of information outside the few they are trained to automatically accuse the opposition of using.
 
then how do you know about it?

Because there's reporting on it, to include FBI documentation detailing how poorly she treated her security detail.
 
Back
Top Bottom