4 ms·

[flagged]

intended 2y ago
Fact checkers will link or establish their evidence. The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it. I think you aren’t going to find it because overlapping fact checkers with news media is a slippery thing. News media is going to be combining opinion and news, to push an angle. Fact checkers are wont. I suspect you are shifting your ire from media, to fact checkers, which wouldn’t be fair. However if there was a fact check that said Trump was a Russian plant? That would negate my contention.
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  > The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it. I didn’t save the links, so no, I don’t have evidence ready to show you, and it’s not like I can just go to their websites and see an accurate history of their conclusions on specific claims, given that many of them have a history of simply burying their original conclusions once it becomes obvious they were wrong (e.g., [0]). [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-200...
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Well the most mainstream "news" source Fox news had to pay out almost a billion dollars for dis-information, so the biggest mainstream 'news' (though they did claim in court no one could possibly think they are news so it's ok for them to lie) institution kind of had to apologize.
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  > Well the most mainstream "news" source Fox news had to pay out almost a billion dollars for dis-information […] The case in question did NOT go to trial, so your claim isn’t entirely correct, but yes, all mainstream “news” outlets (including Fox) abuse our trust by constantly lying to us—I don’t watch or trust any of them. I remember when Rachel Maddow told us, “Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus? The virus does not infect them; the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else.” [0] [0]: https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1839635641019081160 https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1839635641019081160
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The court made findings though, didn't they? Check page 44 under 'Fair Report'. https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Civil-Opinion-N21C-03-257-EMD-1.pdf https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Civil-Opinio...
lazyeye 2y ago
Also I saw an interesting interview with Marc Andreessen recently where he mentioned about how the Dems would fund "Disinformation Research" units at universities. These research units would (shockingly!) be staffed by 100% Democrat supporters and (even more shockingly) would tend to view everything the Dems disagree with as "disinformation". These groups would then apply pressure to media/social media companies to suppress content. So they were able to breach the first amendment by using censorship by surrogacy. The Democrat censorship industrial complex was ugly and insidious and leading us to a very dark place indeed.
blast 2y ago
The comment you're replying to was a joke.
- jay-barronville 2y ago
  By the time I realized that, it was too late.

[flagged]

Fact checkers will link or establish their evidence. The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it. I think you aren’t going to find it because overlapping fact checkers with news media is a slippery thing. News media is going to be combining opinion and news, to push an angle. Fact checkers are wont. I suspect you are shifting your ire from media, to fact checkers, which wouldn’t be fair. However if there was a fact check that said Trump was a Russian plant? That would negate my contention.

jay-barronville 2y ago
> The claim that the president was a Russian spy was never made afaik. But if you have evidence of a fact checker saying this, I’d appreciate it. I didn’t save the links, so no, I don’t have evidence ready to show you, and it’s not like I can just go to their websites and see an accurate history of their conclusions on specific claims, given that many of them have a history of simply burying their original conclusions once it becomes obvious they were wrong (e.g., [0]). [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-200...

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Well the most mainstream "news" source Fox news had to pay out almost a billion dollars for dis-information, so the biggest mainstream 'news' (though they did claim in court no one could possibly think they are news so it's ok for them to lie) institution kind of had to apologize.

jay-barronville 2y ago
> Well the most mainstream "news" source Fox news had to pay out almost a billion dollars for dis-information […] The case in question did NOT go to trial, so your claim isn’t entirely correct, but yes, all mainstream “news” outlets (including Fox) abuse our trust by constantly lying to us—I don’t watch or trust any of them. I remember when Rachel Maddow told us, “Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus? The virus does not infect them; the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else.” [0] [0]: https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1839635641019081160 https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1839635641019081160
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The court made findings though, didn't they? Check page 44 under 'Fair Report'. https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Civil-Opinion-N21C-03-257-EMD-1.pdf https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Civil-Opinio...

lazyeye 2y ago

Also I saw an interesting interview with Marc Andreessen recently where he mentioned about how the Dems would fund "Disinformation Research" units at universities. These research units would (shockingly!) be staffed by 100% Democrat supporters and (even more shockingly) would tend to view everything the Dems disagree with as "disinformation". These groups would then apply pressure to media/social media companies to suppress content. So they were able to breach the first amendment by using censorship by surrogacy. The Democrat censorship industrial complex was ugly and insidious and leading us to a very dark place indeed.

blast 2y ago

The comment you're replying to was a joke.

jay-barronville 2y ago
By the time I realized that, it was too late.