Media Tracker (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    6,390
    Reaction score
    2,965
    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?
     
    Right-wing cable network One America News(OAN) has settled a defamation lawsuit brought by a former Dominion Voting Machines executive over false claims the company had rigged the 2020 presidential election, according to court filings.

    Eric Coomer, Dominion’s former top security official, sued OAN and star correspondent Chanel Rion for spreading lies that he and the company had engaged in a massive voter fraud effort to flip votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

    A new court filing stated the parties “have fully and finally settled the disputes”, but provided no further details.

    Mr Coomer’s defamation lawsuit against the Trump 2020 presidential campaign, and the ex-president’s former lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, appears to still be unresolved.……

     
    Come on, media, be better! We are depending on you.


    Of course you and the left are depending on the media to run cover for Biden as they always do for Democrats. Yall complain when they don't do it enough. Once again, the media is basically an arm or the Democrat Party.

    In an impressive new low, the White House sends impeachment coverage guidelines up a flagpole, and the press salutes

    Biden White House spokesperson Ian Sams sent out a letter to news organizations Tuesday, giving instructions on how they should cover (or non-cover, as it were) the Republican impeachment inquiry announced that day by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. News organizations then reported on administration instructions as they followed them, a display of craven supplication that would have impressed Erich Honecker.

    ...In one instance Sams was able to quote himself in a tweet less than 24 hours after the Washington Post obligingly used, in a headline, language from his letter about GOP efforts to “muddy waters.” Once this kind of thing would have been considered embarrassing, but this crew just nuzzles and begs for more. Already all summer, they’ve been helping blanket a quote assiduously kept out of headlines: “Five million to pay one Biden, and five million to another Biden.”

    The phrase is the key line in an FBI document about a Confidential Human Source (CHS), who attended a meeting at the offices of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in “2015/2016.” Released on July 20th by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, the form describes statements by Burisma chief Mykola Zlochevsky. “It costs 5 (million) to pay one Biden, and 5 (million) to another Biden,” Zlochevsky reportedly said. The source was unsure “whether these payments had been made”:

    Screenshot_20230915_181631_Gallery.jpg

    It can’t have been fun for Biden officials to see this public, especially given how neatly it lines up with son Hunter’s infamous “unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary” quote. Next to IRS whistleblower testimony about Hunter Biden’s shell companies, Devon Archer’s testimony about Joe Biden’s presence during his son’s business calls, Joe dining with Burisma exec Vadym Pozharsky at Cafe Milano, and other matters, this is a non-ignorable story now, and the pucker factor chez Biden must be real. Sams sent a two-page introduction and a 14-page appendix addressing seven GOP claims the White House insists have been “debunked” and “refuted.” The CHS form story was first:
    THE FACTS SHOW: FBI FD-1023 forms are simply the memorialization of tips to the FBI. They are not documented proof and allegations do not need to be corroborated to be included on the form. They are simply unverified claims.
    Sams then linked to a series of press stories containing passages underscoring the “unverified claims” theme. Among others, he cited Axios (the FBI form “simply documents an interview with a source, and does not in itself indicate any suspicions of wrongdoing”), NBC (“The bribery allegation… wasn’t substantiated”) and CNN (“The FBI and prosecutors who previously reviewed the information couldn’t corroborate the claims”).
    What did those stories have in common? They all contained quotes from Ian Sams! White House official sends instructions to reporters, citing media reports sourced to the same White House official. If this merry-go-round doesn’t convince you the lines between media and politicians have been irrevocably blurred, go back and look. You’ll find this same cycle of press figures packing bodies of articles with official denials, then augmenting their own text with the official’s terminology: “refuted,” “debunked,” “no evidence of wrongdoing,” etc. You can’t tell who wrote the original line of defense. Despite this, Sams without irony referred to White House assertions being confirmed by “independent press” five times.

     
    Bump is nothing more than a Democrat partisan masquerading as a journalist which also describes the Washington Post. Here's another example of how they act when they are confronted with evidence that contradicts their claims & they can't back them up. Sounds like some people here.
     
    That quote is being used wildly dishonestly. You are so bad at this…..
     
    That quote is being used wildly dishonestly. You are so bad at this…..
    Do tell and be specific. I have a feeling you won't. This is just one of your ways to make excuses for something you don't agree with. I see yall's other new thing is to ask for more information for "context." Do you all not see how transparently obvious it is when yall can't refute something then yall try to distract and deflect?
     
    Last edited:
    Do tell and be specific. I have a feeling you won't. This is just one of your ways to make excuses for something you don't agree with. I see yall's other new thing is to ask for more information for "context." Do you all not see how transparently obvious it is when yall can't refute something then yall try to distract and deflect?

    Do you think context is important at all when working out the point someone is trying to make? For instance, if someone releases a text from Chuck Schumer that says "I don't like Chinese," do you think it's important to see the texts that precede it to see whether he's talking about Chinese people or dinner options?
     
    Do you think context is important at all when working out the point someone is trying to make? For instance, if someone releases a text from Chuck Schumer that says "I don't like Chinese," do you think it's important to see the texts that precede it to see whether he's talking about Chinese people or dinner options?
    It depends on if it's really context or just political spin as it was in the case of the CNN "fact checking."
     
    It depends on if it's really context or just political spin as it was in the case of the CNN "fact checking."

    I don't see any fact-checks from CNN. Can you show me an example of CNN fact-checkers engaging in political spin instead of simply providing context?
     


    McCarthy made these claims as a reason to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Do you think stating that "there is no evidence of Joe Biden being involved in anything improper, illegal, or shady" is adding context or political spin, nd what is the reasoning behind your viewpoint?
     
    McCarthy made these claims as a reason to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Do you think stating that "there is no evidence of Joe Biden being involved in anything improper, illegal, or shady" is adding context or political spin, nd what is the reasoning behind your viewpoint?
    That's political spin because there is definitely evidence out there that Joe was involved in some shady shirt with Hunter. They do need to investigate further and that's what the impeachment inquiry is for.

    Evidence includes: an FBI source quoting Mykola Zlochevsky saying, “Five million to pay one Biden, and five million to another Biden," Hunter Biden's concordant note to daughter Naomi about how "unlike pop I won't make you give me half your salary," James Gilliar's quote about 10% to the "big guy," the use of pseudonyms in emails to Hunter, the list of shell companies that came out of IRS whistleblower testimony, the Devon Archer testimony about phone calls and Joe meeting with the likes of Vadim Pozharsky, the tapes of Petro Poroshenko agreeing to fire Viktor Shokin as he insists, "We don't have any information about him doing something wrong," and many other things.

    You may not find all this convincing, but you can't call it "no evidence at all."

     
    That's political spin because there is definitely evidence out there that Joe was involved in some shady shirt with Hunter. They do need to investigate further and that's what the impeachment inquiry is for.

    Evidence includes: an FBI source quoting Mykola Zlochevsky saying, “Five million to pay one Biden, and five million to another Biden," Hunter Biden's concordant note to daughter Naomi about how "unlike pop I won't make you give me half your salary," James Gilliar's quote about 10% to the "big guy," the use of pseudonyms in emails to Hunter, the list of shell companies that came out of IRS whistleblower testimony, the Devon Archer testimony about phone calls and Joe meeting with the likes of Vadim Pozharsky, the tapes of Petro Poroshenko agreeing to fire Viktor Shokin as he insists, "We don't have any information about him doing something wrong," and many other things.

    You may not find all this convincing, but you can't call it "no evidence at all."


    I find it utterly fascinating that you give total credence to anonymous sources when they are disparaging Biden, yet you continually rail about anonymous sources when they disparage any Republicans. Anonymous sources are never “evidence” of anything.
     
    I find it utterly fascinating that you give total credence to anonymous sources when they are disparaging Biden, yet you continually rail about anonymous sources when they disparage any Republicans. Anonymous sources are never “evidence” of anything.
    Also, the testimony of Archer doesn’t contain any evidence that Joe Biden had anything to do with Hunter’s business dealings. In fact, Archer actually testified that Hunter was essentially giving the appearance of influence but in reality was very careful to keep his dad separate from his business dealings. He was very explicit about that during his testimony. Did you ever get around to actually reading the transcript? People are misrepresenting things to advance a narrative. Your tweeter uses the quote about Joe taking half of Hunter‘s salary which has been thoroughly debunked. That alone should have clued you in that the tweeter isn’t being honest.
     

    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