Above the fold...
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Democracy dies in darkness, y'all...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
Please love yourself.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Democracy dies in darkness, y'all...
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
I was only joking
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
I don't agree that the medium of distribution should affect the quality, however I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK. It would also appear to make anything they say essentially worthless.
I was only joking
-
At the Washington Post, some slob runs up to the editor at 10:00 PM.
"Boss, a plane just collided with a helicopter and both fell into the river. We start printing in an hour."
The Boss: "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"
That didn't happen.
What happened?
"Boss, a plane just collided with a helicopter and both fell into the river. We start printing in an hour."
The Boss: "Put it at the bottom, in a corner. We gotta run the politics stories."
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
I don't agree that the medium of distribution should affect the quality, however I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK. It would also appear to make anything they say essentially worthless.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK.
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda. And there's nothing tacit about Redstate's editorial decision. THey're as partisan as the DailyKos.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK.
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda. And there's nothing tacit about Redstate's editorial decision. THey're as partisan as the DailyKos.
@George-K said in Above the fold...:
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda.
Well, admittedly I don't read newspapers, a habit I lost long ago back in the UK when most of the print-media bias was on the other side of the political spectrum.
Maybe you need Rupert Murdoch to take over some of your daily papers.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
Bro it's 2025. If the page has ads on it, it's clickbait. Thar be no escape.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I'm forced to read The Daily Mail very much against my will when my friends here insist on posting links to their appalling articles.
I feel that this is essentially an abusive relationship.
-
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You asked where did the 30,573 lies stat come from? I provided you with a CSV file with each single one, fully analyzed and auditable. You discounted the whole list because the person who put it together works for WaPo, as if that discredits the facts in the spreadsheet. If RedState authors did the exact same work and provided the exact same spreadsheet, would you believe it then?
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You asked where did the 30,573 lies stat come from? I provided you with a CSV file with each single one, fully analyzed and auditable. You discounted the whole list because the person who put it together works for WaPo, as if that discredits the facts in the spreadsheet. If RedState authors did the exact same work and provided the exact same spreadsheet, would you believe it then?
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You asked where did the 30,573 lies stat come from? I provided you with a CSV file with each single one, fully analyzed and auditable. You discounted the whole list because the person who put it together works for WaPo, as if that discredits the facts in the spreadsheet. If RedState authors did the exact same work and provided the exact same spreadsheet, would you believe it then?
The facts are sailing five feet over your head.
-
I would have to go back and confirm, and frankly I don’t have the time or inclination to do so, but I seem to remember that the WaPo lie list went something like this: Trump - “There were 100,000 people at my inauguration”
WaPo - “We estimate 85,000, that’s a lie”
Trump - “No, it was!”
WaPo - “That’s 2 lies”
Trump proceeds to make the claim at 5 rallies and 4 interviews…
WaPo - “That’s 11 lies!”
The Brad
-
Meanwhile, a major ingredient in Trump's political secret sauce, is the fact that he comes off as genuine, if often obviously hyperbolic.
-
I would have to go back and confirm, and frankly I don’t have the time or inclination to do so, but I seem to remember that the WaPo lie list went something like this: Trump - “There were 100,000 people at my inauguration”
WaPo - “We estimate 85,000, that’s a lie”
Trump - “No, it was!”
WaPo - “That’s 2 lies”
Trump proceeds to make the claim at 5 rallies and 4 interviews…
WaPo - “That’s 11 lies!”
@LuFins-Dad said in Above the fold...:
I would have to go back and confirm, and frankly I don’t have the time or inclination to do so, but I seem to remember that the WaPo lie list went something like this: Trump - “There were 100,000 people at my inauguration”
WaPo - “We estimate 85,000, that’s a lie”
Trump - “No, it was!”
WaPo - “That’s 2 lies”
Trump proceeds to make the claim at 5 rallies and 4 interviews…
WaPo - “That’s 11 lies!”
Actually from what I can tell they only counted one general lie per event once. They went out of their way NOT to double count, such as in the same speech. It’s all in the CSV file. It’s as clear and auditable as you can ask for. I’ve done a spot check and it all is accurate in terms of single-counting false statements from Trump.
