No, some “other” unnamed Hannity board clown. As in, the list is too long to go through, so I’ll just say…
But once again, you’re “very courageous” in outing yourself.
Someone should buy you a cake.
SCARBOROUGH: “So, we’re checking the story about a child who an immigration lawyer said I think, a news outlet retweeted, that a child may have died in custody. There is no confirmation of that story yet. So, if we get confirmation, we’ll let you know. But right now —
Read your own damned linked source.
Nothing fake.
Nothing at all.
You screwed the pooch with this one.
Just admit it.
Quit trying to beat a dead horse.
There was no fake news.
If you’re unwilling to acknowledge that they came back from commercial to correct themselves with that then I can’t help you.
My GOD you are dense.
Story initially reported as a child "may have died " = yet unconfirmed
That lead to them coming back with this…
Confirmation received = Story as initially reported that child “may have died” was not correct.
There is no “fake news” in there.
The problem is you can’t help yourself.
You appear to be in some sort of Trump influenced denial.
It appears @ohknow35 and some other low-information Hannity clowns don’t understand what “fake news” is.
3 Likes
I wonder how they would react to a press Secretary using a debunked story to attack people.
Oh because it happened yesterday.
And the debunked story was nearly 30 years old.
And she hasn’t corrected herself yet.
WHERES YOUR FAKE NEWS NOW?
True.
I am of the opinion those same people don’t know what real news is. Period!
Whoops. That’s gonna be ignored.
1 Like
We should not insult tabloids. I can agree here.
One of the most famous UK tabloid stories was “Freddie Starr ate my hampster.” Freddie Starr - Wikipedia. The story itself amounted in an unsubstantiated claim by just one person and it would appear that no effort was made to verify any of the alleged facts.
In the absence of any evidence the headline would appear to be entirely misleading. Furthermore it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the paper the editor and the reporter all knew that the headline was misleading.
And yet, while some people would say this intentionally misleading headline and the unsubstantiated allegation, amount to ‘fake’ news, the story is not ‘fake news’. I believe the papers defence of the story would be that they were accurately report the alleged claim itself and that the paper was not itself claiming that the event occurred.
If, however, the story had contained a false claim by the paper, for example that the reporter had been shown a half eaten hampster, or if the reporter had falsely claimed to have confirmed the story with Mr Starr, then the story would correctly be identified as fake news.
Personally I think the problem with associating the terms ‘tabloid’ or ‘tabloid journalism’ with ‘fake news’ is that it suggests that a tabloid story such as the above example is ‘fake news.’ I would maintain that such tabloid stories have not quite descended to the depths of ‘fake news’. Rather such stories remain at the bottom, in terms of quality, of what can be described as ‘news’.
30 years ago?
Y’okay.
I agree.
The National Enquirer is better than CNN. Not by much, but at least the National Enquirer is “News”, while CNN is nothing more than “Fake News.”
2 Likes
From your “story…”
Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998.
That would be too much to expect. Another OH NO! moment.
Which of course explains why Sarah brought it up YESTERDAY.
2 Likes
Seth Rich’s family agrees with this post
3 Likes
Good lord. Quote mining much?
What’s more, as Kessler reported, it wasn’t reported that the phone had actually been surveilled until after bin Laden stopped using it.
That pair is the absolute most disgusting of the lame stream media. The worst of MsDNC.
It was a stupid thing to publicize. No quote needed for that. Once again Sarah is correct.
If participating in this forum = “publicizing”…I’m guilty.
