Worlds biggest conspiracy theory

[beej]

@Smit it's a long read, but well worth it. from the Columbia Journalism Review.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/columbia-journalism-review/   (left leaning)

rare, real reporting. This guy who worked at the NYT for 30 years tells it like it happened from beginning to end and even interviewed everyone involved, from Steele, to Strok, to Trump.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-2.php
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-3.php
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-4.php

[YoDoug]

Does this mean mediabiasfactcheck.com is going to go back and change their ratings of sources like TGP and Redstate that were reporting the truth about the Russia collusion lie all along? And likewise degrade the ratings of left sources that perpetuated the lie?

Doubtful. Fact check sites are just another misinformation tool the left uses to trick ignorant people.

[neurosis]

Does this mean mediabiasfactcheck.com is going to go back and change their ratings of sources like TGP and Redstate that were reporting the truth about the Russia collusion lie all along? And likewise degrade the ratings of left sources that perpetuated the lie?

If someone lies to you 100 times and it happens that 1 of those lies turned out to be the truth, would you change your opinion of the person being a liar?

[RobertELee]

If someone lies to you 100 times and it happens that 1 of those lies turned out to be the truth, would you change your opinion of the person being a liar?

You're giving them too much credit. When was the liberal media correct once in the past 2 years?

[YoDoug]

If someone lies to you 100 times and it happens that 1 of those lies turned out to be the truth, would you change your opinion of the person being a liar?

Not sure, I'm still waiting for Smit to post something that is true.

[Smit]

Not sure, I'm still waiting for Smit to post something that is true.

Doug is a wacky conspiracy theorist.

There ya go. 

[RobertELee]

Doug is a wacky conspiracy theorist.

There ya go. 

And Smit is a Kool-aid drinking libtard that would follow the rest of them off a cliff.


And calling someone a wacky conspiracy theorist is no longer an insult, it's a badge of honor that represents free thinkers that have been right more times than we have been wrong in the past 3 years. Keep doing it, you're making us proud.

And maybe you didn't realize it, but this country was built on free thinkers who didn't follow the accepted norm.

[Smit]

this country was built on free thinkers who didn't follow the accepted norm.

Like you right? 

[mkd]

Not sure, I'm still waiting for Smit to admit he was wrong about the 51 intelligence officers that signed off about Biden porn laptop.

rent free fix

[thad]

If someone lies to you 100 times and it happens that 1 of those lies turned out to be the truth, would you change your opinion of the person being a liar?

If a "lie" turned out to be true, then it was never a lie in the first place...therefore they lied 99 times, not 100. I took that one from page 37 of the YoDoug King of Technicalities Playbook. 

[Jeff]

Not sure, I'm still waiting for Smit to post something that is true.

He can't and won't because he hasn't been told to yet.

[beej]

The NYT is still at it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/02/03/revealing_the_new_york_times_deceitful_russiagate_coverage_148809.html

"You've been given a great gift, George," the angel Clarence tells George Bailey in "It's A Wonderful Life." "A chance to see what the world would be like without you."

Readers of the New York Times have been given a similar gift this week – a chance to see how the paper they revere deceives them. Where the Christmas classic showed the difference one person can make through the contrasting fates of two towns, Bedford Falls and Pottersville, Times readers can see how far their paper has fallen by comparing two recent articles.

The first is a survey of the Trump Russia collusion scandal the Times published on Jan. 26. While ostensibly focusing on the relationship between former Attorney General William P. Barr and the man he appointed to investigate Russiagate wrongdoing, John Durham, its real aim is to rewrite the history of Russiagate to justify the actions taken while minimizing the problems that occurred. This long article is written with such seeming authority that readers who consider the Times the "paper of record" will easily dismiss Russiagate critics as part of the right-wing echo chamber.

The second is a devastating critique of the paper's years-long Trump-Russia coverage, published on Jan. 30 in the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review. Written by Jeff Gerth, a former Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Times, this four-part series, "The press versus the president," describes in rich detail how the Times (and the many mainstream news outlets that follow its lead) deliberately misled its readers for years. "At its root," he writes, "was an undeclared war between an entrenched media, and a new kind of disruptive presidency, with its own hyperbolic version of the truth."