CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Who needs clout when you already have a populace or percentage of the world population that believes it all implicitly
Media/Journalism Cringe Megathread - Hot off the Presses
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
Who needs clout when you already have a populace or percentage of the world population that believes it all implicitly
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Oh “so just two bibles and a flag were burned, Russian disinformation peasants!”
Jesus fucking Christ.
Notice the changed angle here, they aren’t saying it didn’t happen(they acknowledge it did), their just downplaying it as incidental and suggesting that the Russians made it a big deal.
Looking at the related articles-their already developing the “muh Russia narrative”.
So if Trump wins we have to endure even more “Trump got Russia elected” nonsense for years.
its actually a step up from them instead of directly lying to our faces their desperately trying to down play the truth.
Its like no one wants to admit there is a problem with left wing extremism and Im wondering what its going to take for people to admit we have a problem.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean it’s running cover, when you can’t deny you deflate, and defuse and de-emphasize.
Their basically saying “well it happened but the Russians want us divided and so made it like important”.
I found it amusing how they note how “the protesters around it didn’t react to it”-basically admitting they agreed with what was done.
I read a few articles on the Hinnant killing as well.
www.google.com
Basically “conservatives made a big deal out of nothing, media reported it(the daily beast article is one paragraph) with the “national reckoning” shit.
Also notice they say conservative in contrast to the “national” reckoning. It’s subtly insinuating what is important or of national interest or belief is different from conservative concerns. Casual viewers reading the title will think “oh this is something conservatives care about”.
Same thing with the Washington post article. Which basically says “conservatives only really care about this, you reader shouldn’t” and “well it wasn’t racially motivated”
The media doesn’t so much as lie as it dissimulates-making simple pronouncements which conceal complexity and complex lectures which conceal simplicity. No it wasn’t a “kill whitey” but that wasn’t what anyone said-the criticism was how the media reported the difference. Emphasizing race with Floyd and de emphasizing with this.
It’s like that time the media said trump was wrong about Dem cities and crime-wherein Trump was accurate with 9/10 of them. And the media was like “well he said all so wrong wrong”
Their basically saying “well it happened but the Russians want us divided and so made it like important”.
I found it amusing how they note how “the protesters around it didn’t react to it”-basically admitting they agreed with what was done.
I read a few articles on the Hinnant killing as well.
How The Murder Of 5-Year-Old Cannon Hinnant Became A Conservative Controversy About Race
By Friday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson was asking why the media was ignoring Hinnant’s murder.
www.google.com
Basically “conservatives made a big deal out of nothing, media reported it(the daily beast article is one paragraph) with the “national reckoning” shit.
Also notice they say conservative in contrast to the “national” reckoning. It’s subtly insinuating what is important or of national interest or belief is different from conservative concerns. Casual viewers reading the title will think “oh this is something conservatives care about”.
Same thing with the Washington post article. Which basically says “conservatives only really care about this, you reader shouldn’t” and “well it wasn’t racially motivated”
The media doesn’t so much as lie as it dissimulates-making simple pronouncements which conceal complexity and complex lectures which conceal simplicity. No it wasn’t a “kill whitey” but that wasn’t what anyone said-the criticism was how the media reported the difference. Emphasizing race with Floyd and de emphasizing with this.
It’s like that time the media said trump was wrong about Dem cities and crime-wherein Trump was accurate with 9/10 of them. And the media was like “well he said all so wrong wrong”
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Babylon Bee twatter account got suspended, although suspension was later lifted when someone thought that it might be too controversial. What got them in the hot water?
Truth is haram
Truth is haram
almostinsane
Well-known member
Babylon Bee twatter account got suspended, although suspension was later lifted when someone thought that it might be too controversial. What got them in the hot water?
Truth is haram
It's actually true. Of course, they needed to censor it. How did the Babylon Bee become more reliable than CNN?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
It's run by Christians with a moral and religious commitment to the Truth?
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
It’s not that hard to even find out what’s going on and even they’re weirded out by how absurd reality is these days?
to be fair to the onion, even though theyre a left wing joke: I'm registered as democrat and I'm voting R down ticket in November.Really the pretzels Snopes will tie itself into to promote the left can get amusing fast. Here's one of my favorites:
Orlando Shooter Was a Democrat?
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.www.snopes.com
Just because the shooter was registered as a Democrat doesn't mean he was really a Democrat, he could have secretly thought Republican thoughts on the inside, or have changed his mind and become a Republican and just kept his registration as a Democrat for... reasons.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Snopes, not the Onion. And a fair point, but if you scroll through their articles on mass shootings you'll find every last one of them has some reason it "doesn't count" when the shooter is a democrat while, for instance, Ted Cruz being a Republican is given a straight-up "True" rating.
Other times Snopes actively obfuscates when the evidence isn't with them, as here:
Did More Mass Shootings Take Place Under Obama Than Any Other President?
The claim that vastly more mass shootings have taken place during Obama's administration than that of any other President is a false one based on double standards.
www.snopes.com
FALSE: The evidence they used changed standards due to the FBI! Some of those are mass killings or mass homocides instead of mass shootings. Obama only had 27 mass shootings compared to the other presidents, and only 11 of them had 8 or more victims!
Me: Wait, the list of other presidents....
They're all still significantly lower than 27 mass murders and 11 with 8 or more deaths... it was true all along.Snopes said:
I meant to type snopes but it was like 5 something in the morning lolSnopes, not the Onion. And a fair point, but if you scroll through their articles on mass shootings you'll find every last one of them has some reason it "doesn't count" when the shooter is a democrat while, for instance, Ted Cruz being a Republican is given a straight-up "True" rating.
Other times Snopes actively obfuscates when the evidence isn't with them, as here:
Did More Mass Shootings Take Place Under Obama Than Any Other President?
The claim that vastly more mass shootings have taken place during Obama's administration than that of any other President is a false one based on double standards.
FALSE: The evidence they used changed standards due to the FBI! Some of those are mass killings or mass homocides instead of mass shootings. Obama only had 27 mass shootings compared to the other presidents, and only 11 of them had 8 or more victims!
Me: Wait, the list of other presidents....
They're all still significantly lower than 27 mass murders and 11 with 8 or more deaths... it was true all along.
Only the only number close is A dem!Snopes, not the Onion. And a fair point, but if you scroll through their articles on mass shootings you'll find every last one of them has some reason it "doesn't count" when the shooter is a democrat while, for instance, Ted Cruz being a Republican is given a straight-up "True" rating.
Other times Snopes actively obfuscates when the evidence isn't with them, as here:
Did More Mass Shootings Take Place Under Obama Than Any Other President?
The claim that vastly more mass shootings have taken place during Obama's administration than that of any other President is a false one based on double standards.
FALSE: The evidence they used changed standards due to the FBI! Some of those are mass killings or mass homocides instead of mass shootings. Obama only had 27 mass shootings compared to the other presidents, and only 11 of them had 8 or more victims!
Me: Wait, the list of other presidents....
They're all still significantly lower than 27 mass murders and 11 with 8 or more deaths... it was true all along.
Hmmmm
New York Times said:
Yes like we need the Russians to exacerbate racial tensions ahead of the election...
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Is the NYT admitting the 1619 project to be a Russian psyop then? Someone should look into that.
Tzeentchean Perspective
Well-known member
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
They only scream "muh Russia" so much because they're working for China.
Snopes, The Onion, what's the difference?
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
The Onion is more accurate.
Yinko
Well-known member
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Because, you know, it's not like mixed-race couples have ever gotten and married and had kids. I mean, that southern lady and her African (actual African, not afro-american) husband whose kids were some of my friends growing up overseas, that's definitely not a thing that ever happened.