Oh, I’m sorry.
I didn’t know YOU were in charge of what constitutes “Fake news.”
M
Fox has issues. CNN has issues. I take them both with a grain knowing their bias.
It seems to me Fox News “fans” see that CNN has issues (the same as me) but can’t see Fox’s issues (oddly not the same as me). I guess that’s why I end up in a different place than lots of Fox “fans”.
Seems a simple explanation but then, Occam’s razor.
Trump is in charge of what “fake news” means to his supporters, and that’s anything and everything. It’s to twist it to his whim, to confuse and repurpose. Fake news meant stories that are put out purely to trick people, like pizza gate. Entirely made up things in an effort to cause chaos, have fun, etc. Trump didn’t like that and found a new meaning for it, anything he doesn’t like. Anything that is negative about him. And every story and tweet a journalist puts out there that gets ahead of the facts or gets them wrong, regardless if there is a correction, only helps him in his charade.
I get it from him. He’d say the same thing innocent or guilty.
How do you know he’s innocent? Or do you just repeat what you’re told?
And AGAIN you seem to believe that “fake news” is only a product of Trump and he is the only one who calls the balls and strikes.
Fake news is incorrect news that distorts the truth or outright misrepresents the truth, whether by accident or by design OR by bad journalism.
When the NYT says that Jussie Smollett was attacked the reader will believe that it is a foregone conclusion that he was and that there are Trump supporters running around Chicago attacking black gays, just because “this is MAGA country”.
They will NOT say, “Well, there seems to be some question still about this.”
How does that serve the country???
M
You claimed he was wrong to say he is suffering a witch hunt. I’m not claiming he is right. I’m claiming you cannot say he is wrong to claim it.
What if he IS SUFFERING a witch hunt? Until we know you cannot say he is wrong to say so.
M
It would be fake news if the NYT made up the accusation, that Smollett was sitting on his couch, read the story, and had to come out saying he never made this accusation.
Oh, nonsense.
The NYT said he was attacked.THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT, but they said it, anyway.
That is fake news.
M
No. Smollett said he was attacked, they reported he was attacked instead of reporting that he said he was attacked. That’s sloppy reporting or having an agenda in that instance. That is not fake news no matter how much you want it to be.
You’re so confused.
You posted a NYTs article and complained. Not about Smollett but about those telling the story.
I wasn’t talking about Trump. I was talking about you, and anybody who isn’t Trump telling the witch hunt story. Why would you cry witch hunt? Because HE knows? How does that make you know? Not to mention that investigation thing that’s still going on.
The NYT did NOT say “Smollett said he was attacked”. I’d have no problem if they did. That would have been accurate.
They said he was attacked.
They DID NOT KNOW THAT but they said it anyway.
And with that goes a huge accusation that the Times didn’t dispute or question.
Fake news.
M
Where did I say that the President is suffering a witch hunt??
I posted the NYT story specifically because it is an example of fake news by the NYT, which I was asked to show. There it is.
M
Have I been talking to the wrong guy? You don’t think the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt?
I have never said that.
I have only and ever said that I have seen ZERO proof that Trump was involved in any collusuion with the Russians.
That Robert Mueller MAY end up getting Russian internet hooligans off the internet would be a good thing, though I seriously doubt he will in any way stop the Russians from trolling the internet in the future, if they want to. But there are MILLIONS of Americans who troll the internet, too and they haven’t shut down our democracy.
Anyone who takes the internet seriously is a fool, IMHO.
M
Anyone who doesn’t take it seriously is a fool. That’s a fact.
Ask the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Russians, Amazon, Facebook, our own Intel community, electrical grids, and the one guy who should yell, witch hunt! And twitter.
To each his own.
I wouldn’t mind a bit if it all disappeared tomorrow. But then, I’m old enough to know we can easily live without it.
I have, for most of my life.
And I know that for every good it does there is an equal bad it does.
M
Without the internet we wouldn’t go back to the world you remember before the internet. That ship has sailed. We can’t move forward, backward, or sideways from where we were. Only from where we are.
Keep thinking the internet is not to be taken seriously. Those that would do us harm (or sell us things) factor that into the equation.
Are you really saying that without the internet we could not know that someone is doing us harm???
How did we survive for 200 years witthout the internet?
I’m not telling you we should get rid of the internet while letting everyone else keep it. I’m telling you that if there was no internet we would NOT be in a precarious situation.
I know that because we survived as a nation without it for 200 years. It is NOT necessary for our survival or even our thriving. We clearly proved that.
And AGAIN, for every good it does there is an equal bad it does - maybe even more bad than good.
M
Why do you always try to twist someone words into something completely different from what they said?
1 Like
True dat. The 2016 election is a testament to that
