About the motive, not the reported crime. The report of the crime they bought lock stock and barrel.
Are you really a journalist, or are you just an alleged journalist? I would think that a real journalist would know the meaning of words (or at least own a dictionary) and understand their context in a sentence.
Even CNN’s first sentence in their article was that he WAS attacked. Not allegedly attacked, not apparently attacked…WAS attacked.
There was no hedging going on at all.
They did a lot more than one because there were updates. But then that would ruin talking points.
Yet, they indicated he WAS attacked as if was fact. Not allegedly attacked, not apparently attacked…WAS attacked.
They made that a definitive statement.
I choose not to believe you. I’ve read too many of your posts.
Bolded… Oh the irony.
But maybe I see the disconnect here.
We’re not talking about journalism here. At least I’m not. “Journalism” (in quotes deliberately, and as it is practiced today) is only a part of what I’m talking about with respect to the SMollett case. I’m talking about all of the liberal realm. “Journalism”, and media (different from journalism, but not so much different from “journalism”), politicians, entertainers, pundits, social media, and even mobs of libs like we see on this board.
Look at the Joly case – they even named him Person of the Year afterward, the poor, maligned activist person targeted because she/he was “different”. When someone fits the narrative and claims oppression, elevate the guy at the expense of truth to promote that narrative!
“Facts as they knew it at the time…” ( SPIT ) It’s the narrative as they knew it at the time, and that’s good enough – at the time.
You are right. They did do a lot more than that. They put him in front of a camera and let him retell the lie complete with newly fabricated embellishments without challenging even one word of his story. Good job CNN!
I really could care less.
You’re arguing from a talking points perspective. Reality is different. Fundamentally, journalism has not changed.
Believe the filtered logic you want to. Ain’t that way at all.
Rather than get personal, maybe you should take up reading. The fourth definition says what I’ve been saying. " manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid."
I read just fine. “Apparant Hate Crime”. They didn’t even remotely attempt to hedge on whether the attack had happened or not.
You wanted to believe it, they fed it to you in just such a manner so you would.
I’m not the one touting the false propaganda narrative.
Filtered logic? Is that a journalism term meaning “spin it to achieve the most sensational result”?
Not at all.
You’ve certainly spent an inordinate amount of time and bandwidth trying to justify and excuse it.
The phrase is “couldn’t care less” Mr Journalist.
Yes, indeed it appears that he did.
Horse hockey, I called this exactly right from the start.
Pull out that dictionary again.
