3 ms·
The whatabboutism sure came quick. Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denia
by jandrese 6y ago
The whatabboutism sure came quick.
Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denial would look silly?
Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC, ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter" defense. I'm waiting.
- barbacoa 6y agoNo intension to get caught in a partisan flame war. I think both sides are pretty biased. MSNBC was sued for slander a little while back when Rachel Maddow said OAN (a right wing news organization) “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” That turned out not to be factually correct. MSNBC lawyers successful argued that what she said was just her opinion and didn't actually represent a factual statement.
- jjeaff 6y agoSo did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Or did she say it one time?
- barbacoa 6y ago>>So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Yes, literally. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-see...
- spacemanmatt 6y agoWhat I am willing to believe from a researching like Maddow is quite a different set of conclusions than what I think could be proven in court. Sources, evidence standards, procedures, etc. all designed to preserve rights are not the same environment as academic investigation.