Veritas, Is Very Hot! In Catching The Liberal Fake News Media

[WuWei]

Real as in not the facade we are typically shown to keep us pacified.

The faces of the kabuki actors without the masks and make up.

[acsirip]

Real as in deceptive? By being a facade, they are not a facade? I don’t get it.

[Borgia_dude]

@acsirip

Real as in deceptive? By being a facade, they are not a facade? I don’t get it.

Some people prefer the deception.

[LetFreedomRing]

@WuWei

madasheck:

Veritas isn’t legitimate media. It’s a trash compactor.

Is the Washington Post?

Of course it is. It’s part of the Liberal Fake News Media.

Of course, it sounds like a broken record from Democrats in here, about Veritas supposedly not being credible.

Democrats must not read posts in here?

[SixFoot]

@WuWei

@madasheck

Veritas isn’t legitimate media. It’s a trash compactor.

Is the Washington Post?

It’s an austere environment.

[Paul_Thomson]

Investigative reporting. Democrats aren’t so effusive about the CNN whistlebower as they are about their CIA fantasy-leaker in whistleblower disguise.

[Paul_Thomson]

Well, the Project Veritas news bomb shows Jeff Zucker instructing his propshandists to keep focussed on impeachment, and whenever I tune in to CNN it’s wall to walk impeachment, just like it used to be wall to wall Russia.

So their tapes appear authentic.

[enki]

Would you believe me if I told you that Fox News does the exact same thing with stories they want to push?

[Paul_Thomson]

@enki

Would you believe me if I told you that Fox News does the exact same thing with stories they want to push?

No. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity say they are not told what to talk about on their shows. I believe them. So, I don’t believe someone alleging something contrary to that, unless you have evidence, as Project Veritas does re CNN.
The CNN whistleblower was on Infowars, and came across as extremely credible. The video would be available at the website banned.video

https://banned.video/watch?id=5dae278d0e8382001ca24ebd

[enki]

@Paul_Thomson

I believe them.

because you want to.

[Paul_Thomson]

@enki

because you want to.

Of course. Because the evidence supports trusting them. What’s your evidence for your assertion that Fox pushes it’s anchors to push one particular agenda? Chris Wallace pushes quite a different narrative from Sean and Tucker.

[Borgia_dude]

@Paul_Thomson

@enki

Would you believe me if I told you that Fox News does the exact same thing with stories they want to push?

No. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity say they are not told what to talk about on their shows. I believe them. So, I don’t believe someone alleging something contrary to that, unless you have evidence, as Project Veritas does re CNN.

You must have been trying hard to avoid evidence.I predict you will ignore this as well. From wiki:

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, “The roots of Fox News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.”

Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network’s on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq War, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.

A leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network’s senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News’ coverage of President Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase public option when discussing a key measure of President Obama’s reform bill, and instead use the terms “government option” or “government-run health insurance[,]” noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier “so-called” be said before any proper mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon’s conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on *Special Report with Bret Baier used the term “public option” before the e-mail was sent, but used the term “government option” immediately afterwards.

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to assert that “theories are based upon data that critics have called into question” in light of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

[NJBob]

@WuWei

@madasheck

Veritas isn’t legitimate media. It’s a trash compactor.

Is the Washington Post?

Aww Sneaky. You know better than that.

[adroit]

@Paul_Thomson

Well, the Project Veritas news bomb shows Jeff Zucker instructing his propshandists to keep focussed on impeachment, and whenever I tune in to CNN it’s wall to walk impeachment, just like it used to be wall to wall Russia.

So their tapes appear authentic.

It’s so crazy that a for-profit news org would cover a current event that attracts eyeballs.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Borgia_dude

You must have been trying hard to avoid evidence.I predict you will ignore this as well. From wiki:

The evidence is the broad range of views expressed through Fox’s lineup. It is not at all likely that they are all singing from the same editorial songbook… Unlike CNN whose lineup are homogeneous, with one editorial position.

[Borgia_dude]

@Paul_Thomson

@Borgia_dude

You must have been trying hard to avoid evidence.I predict you will ignore this as well. From wiki:

The evidence is the broad range of views expressed through Fox’s lineup. It is not at all likely that they are all singing from the same editorial songbook… Unlike CNN whose lineup are homogeneous, with one editorial position.

As predicted, you avoid the evidence that FoxNews management didn’t just tell its lineup what stories to cover (which seems all right by me and is what all news agencies do) but also how to cover it and what slanted language to use. This was then corroborated by the change in language seen on air. That is a lot more evidence of bias than what Veritas came up with.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Borgia_dude

That is a lot more evidence of bias than what Veritas came up with.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[Borgia_dude]

@Paul_Thomson

@Borgia_dude

That is a lot more evidence of bias than what Veritas came up with.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Hmm, you don’t think Fox executives telling the talent what words to use, which stories to praise is not evidence of them imparting bias?

Fascinating.

[NJBob]

@Paul_Thomson

@Borgia_dude

You must have been trying hard to avoid evidence.I predict you will ignore this as well. From wiki:

The evidence is the broad range of views expressed through Fox’s lineup. It is not at all likely that they are all singing from the same editorial songbook… Unlike CNN whose lineup are homogeneous, with one editorial position.

Running the gamut from A to B.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Borgia_dude

Hmm, you don’t think Fox executives telling the talent what words to use, which stories to praise is not evidence of them imparting bias?

Fascinating.

I accept that someone has made the allegation, but I just don’t see evidence of it on screen. Can you give some links to archived clips I can watch that prove your story?

On the other hand , daily Media Matters talking points are glaringly obvious across the spectrum of leftist cable networks.