Media Tracker (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,534
    Reaction score
    2,622
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

    There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


    That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






    Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?
     
    She's a censorship advocate...
    This is not the truth.

    This poster continues to falsely accuse people who are fighting against lies on social media that are intended to harm our society and are harming our society.

    This poster falsely sees that as being a "censorship advocate," because this poster and the people they serve do not want anyone calling out and correcting their lies.

    Liars don't like it when people expose their lies. The liars are trying to fool people into mistakenly believing that fact checking lies is censorship.

    They want to trick people into believing that, because if they tell the truth, people will laugh at them and tell them to pound sound.

    If they were honest and told people, "we want to stop people from being able to fact check and point out the lies we tell," then the overwhelming majority of us would ignore them.

    The people like this poster and the people they serve, by re-posting all the lying propaganda of the people they follow, are the ones that are actually trying to censor people by having the courts tell private citizens and organizations that they aren't allowed to publicly point out when someone tells a lie on social media.

    The people like this poster and the people they serve want to silence the people who tell the truth and only allow the liars to speak.
     
    Last edited:
    SFL you should look up NPR's funding.

    Most of the government money they get is indirectly from stations buying their programing.

    We are talking about non-political programming like: Fresh Air, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, This American Life, etc.

    You can also lookup NPR's overall bias, and they do lean left. I don't know why you focus on trivial stuff like this.

    I'm also not surprised NPR has a bias since Republicans openly talked about cutting their funding completely. I also assume most postal workers are voting for democrats these days.
     
    You still don’t get the point. If you want to disparage people as biased then you should attempt to use unbiased sources yourself. I’m not engaging on the content of her tweets, I just don’t care about that. I didn’t point out you were using Rufo until you disparaged somebody else as biased. You shouldn’t feel comfortable using biased sources yourself if you’re going to call other peoples’ sources biased.
    There is a big difference. I'll admit Rufo is biased while you still pretend that NPR and the media aren't biased.

    Either way we can look at Maher's tweets and videos of what she said to know she's a far left loon who loves censorship and doesn't like the truth. She'll fit in perfectly at NPR.

     
    ...we can look at Maher's tweets and videos of what she said...to know she...loves...the truth.
    I intentionally edited this poster's post to illustrate what this poster and all of their sources constantly to do to others while spreading lies.

    The thing is that my editing of this poster's post speaks the actual truth of what Maher said in the video, which is the opposite of what this poster and their source falsely claims she said.

    The poster's source knows that most people don't bother to listen to videos for themselves, so they make false claims in their tweets about what a person actually said in their video. In this case the poster's source made allegedly "quoted" what Maher said in the video, but they selectively quoted Maher just like I did to the post above.

    Don't take my word, the poster's source's word, or the poster's word for what Maher actually said. Completely ignore what the tweeter wrote and just listen to what Maher actually says in the video for yourself. That's the only way anyone can know for themselves the truth of what Maher actually said.

    Maher said that the First Amendment protection is robust and that it's a good thing, she went on to say that the First Amendment makes it tricky to deal with disinformation and lies on media platforms. She's acknowledging that First Amendment rights have to be respected even when trying to counter campaigns of lies and disinformation from people who want to destroy freedom for all. That's the exact opposite of what this poster and their source falsely claims she said.

    The poster and their sources don't want freedom of speech for everyone, they don't even want freedom for everyone. They want the freedom to spread their lies while censoring and silencing anyone who would dare call out their lies. They want the freedom to spread their lies without being challenged, so that can achieve their ultimate goal of destroying our society and government.

    Their goal is to force all of us to live the way they want us to live. If they get their way, which they can't do unless we allow them to lie freely without being opposed and exposed, then those of us who do not obey and conform to their demands will be severely punished, including executed.
     
    Last edited:
    Doesn't someone keep insisting that corporate media is just a bunch of liars?

    Anyhoo, Bill Maher is corporate media's version of:

     
    Last edited:
    The 87 democrats claim has been debunked. Just because Maher repeats it doesn’t make it true. There were tons of inaccuracies in the opinion piece from Berliner. You haven’t addressed any of them. 🤷‍♀️
    It hasn't been debunked. This is your idea of debunking? Vague posts that doesn't say anything specific about the 87 democrats claim. That sounds a lot like your posts here.

    Did he list any Republican editors at NPR? Nope




    From what I can tell, he's not in an editorial position at NPR so irrelevant point. Also, he's registered as No Party, but you can tell exactly who he votes for by his X account.
     



    Norman Eisen (Brookings & CREW) has been serving as outside legal counsel for the prosecutors in Trump’s legal cases. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention.

    Eisen is part of the unofficial DC Lawfare group that includes Brookings, Ben Wittes, Mary McCord, CREW, Bill Kristol, Laurence Tribe,Norm Ornstein, Noah Bookbinder, Barry Berke. Barbara McQuade & many others.

    Eisen, McCord and Wittes are the likely leaders. Brookings & Soros have provided funding to Eisen’s projects.

    On Feb 22, 2022 former US Attorney Barbara McQuade wrote a memorandum: United States v. Donald Trump - A "Model Prosecution Memo" on the Conspiracy to Pressure Vice President Pence.

    On July 23, 2023, Norman Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes."

    We know Eisen was building off McQuade’s earlier memo because he states this upfront.

    We also know that Eisen was effectively acting as outside legal counsel for Jack Smith and his multiple indictments of Trump ( Eisen did the same for Fani Willis).

    As Eisen noted, “This model prosecution memorandum assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.”

    Eisen also served in similar fashion as outside legal counsel for Mueller. Two huge legal reports - that were also used in Trump’s first impeachment. Eisen served as legal counsel to Dems during the impeachment.


    Also:

    “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

    “We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.



    Some of the same people involved especially Eisen and McCord.
     



    Norman Eisen (Brookings & CREW) has been serving as outside legal counsel for the prosecutors in Trump’s legal cases. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention.

    Eisen is part of the unofficial DC Lawfare group that includes Brookings, Ben Wittes, Mary McCord, CREW, Bill Kristol, Laurence Tribe,Norm Ornstein, Noah Bookbinder, Barry Berke. Barbara McQuade & many others.

    Eisen, McCord and Wittes are the likely leaders. Brookings & Soros have provided funding to Eisen’s projects.

    On Feb 22, 2022 former US Attorney Barbara McQuade wrote a memorandum: United States v. Donald Trump - A "Model Prosecution Memo" on the Conspiracy to Pressure Vice President Pence.

    On July 23, 2023, Norman Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes."

    We know Eisen was building off McQuade’s earlier memo because he states this upfront.

    We also know that Eisen was effectively acting as outside legal counsel for Jack Smith and his multiple indictments of Trump ( Eisen did the same for Fani Willis).

    As Eisen noted, “This model prosecution memorandum assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.”

    Eisen also served in similar fashion as outside legal counsel for Mueller. Two huge legal reports - that were also used in Trump’s first impeachment. Eisen served as legal counsel to Dems during the impeachment.


    Also:

    “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

    “We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” said Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.



    Some of the same people involved especially Eisen and McCord.


    Are you completely oblivious to the fact that groups like judicial watch exist? Or is this just more hypocrisy? Sometimes I want to think your just a funny troll, and laugh at these post knowing you're having a good time too. I think you are earnest though, and that's depressing.
     
    It hasn't been debunked. This is your idea of debunking? Vague posts that doesn't say anything specific about the 87 democrats claim. That sounds a lot like your posts here.

    Did he list any Republican editors at NPR? Nope




    From what I can tell, he's not in an editorial position at NPR so irrelevant point. Also, he's registered as No Party, but you can tell exactly who he votes for by his X account.

    What proof did Berliner provide for his claim? Oh, none. Fristchner didn’t list any R editors because he doesn’t know any of their political affiliations, and Berliner doesn’t know either. Fristchner pointed out that the info is either expensive to obtain (in MD) or non-existent (in VA) and that fully 25% of voters in DC are unaffiliated. So it’s just another bull shirt claim that Berliner makes without any proof.
     
    Are you completely oblivious to the fact that groups like judicial watch exist? Or is this just more hypocrisy? Sometimes I want to think your just a funny troll, and laugh at these post knowing you're having a good time too. I think you are earnest though, and that's depressing.
    Is Judicial Watch coordinating with other conservative TV commentators on plans to prosecute Biden?

    Norm Eisen and Mary McCord names keep coming up in these lawfare efforts to get Trump.
     
    What proof did Berliner provide for his claim? Oh, none. Fristchner didn’t list any R editors because he doesn’t know any of their political affiliations, and Berliner doesn’t know either. Fristchner pointed out that the info is either expensive to obtain (in MD) or non-existent (in VA) and that fully 25% of voters in DC are unaffiliated. So it’s just another bull shirt claim that Berliner makes without any proof.
    And … just like every other time, absolutely no response from SFL. I will bet you that he will repeat the BS claim about 87 “democrats” among the editors at NPR at a later date as if it were real. This is his total pattern of posting on here.
     



    I resigned from The Intercept today in order to pursue a new kind of journalism here on Substack, one more hard-hitting than what’s possible in the corporate world. The Intercept has been taken over by suits who have abandoned its founding mission of fearless and adversarial journalism, and I can’t continue in an environment where fear of funders is more important than journalism itself. On a brighter note, though, I’m leaving DC to move back to Wisconsin, excited to embrace independence both in my journalism and from the Washington bubble.

    The reason so much of the news media sucks is they aren’t writing for you. They’re writing for their sources in Washington, for the industries they cover, for rich people, and for fancy awards committees.[//U] Just take a look at the ads they run: for investment banks, defense contractors, oil companies. Unless you’re in the market for any of these products, they aren’t writing for you.




    Yep that's the corporate media.
     
    And … just like every other time, absolutely no response from SFL. I will bet you that he will repeat the BS claim about 87 “democrats” among the editors at NPR at a later date as if it were real. This is his total pattern of posting on here.
    That vague post by a Democratic staffer didn't debunk anything and I've already said so.

    Can you or did that guy point to one Republican who was in an editorial position at NPR? Nope because if Berliner was wrong they should be able to easily say look & say so and so is a Republican, but they didn't because it's just a deflection attempt.
     
    That vague post by a Democratic staffer didn't debunk anything and I've already said so.

    Can you or did that guy point to one Republican who was in an editorial position at NPR? Nope because if Berliner was wrong they should be able to easily say look & say so and so is a Republican, but they didn't because it's just a deflection attempt.
    Your absolute lack of reading comprehension is so tiresome. His posts were very specific. He looked up what someone would have to do to determine the editors’ political affiliation. Virginia doesn’t make that data public. So Berliner cannot know the party affiliation of people who live in VA. In MD Berliner would have had to pay dearly for the info. DC has a full 25% of residents who list no party affiliation.

    Rather than admit Berliner’s claim is most likely pure BS that he made up, especially considering other errors and misstatements in his piece, you refuse to actually acknowledge the facts put forth. Also especially since Berliner neither backs up his claim nor provides how he knows what he claims to know. So typical of someone who refuses to believe anything which contradicts your own cherished narrative.

    Just admit you won’t believe anything except your own cherished narrative.
     
    Your absolute lack of reading comprehension is so tiresome. His posts were very specific. He looked up what someone would have to do to determine the editors’ political affiliation. Virginia doesn’t make that data public. So Berliner cannot know the party affiliation of people who live in VA. In MD Berliner would have had to pay dearly for the info. DC has a full 25% of residents who list no party affiliation.

    Rather than admit Berliner’s claim is most likely pure BS that he made up, especially considering other errors and misstatements in his piece, you refuse to actually acknowledge the facts put forth. Also especially since Berliner neither backs up his claim nor provides how he knows what he claims to know. So typical of someone who refuses to believe anything which contradicts your own cherished narrative.

    Just admit you won’t believe anything except your own cherished narrative.
    He was very specific. He just couldn't find anything at all to prove his point lol
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom