A new whistleblower
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 16:03 last edited by
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 16:31 last edited by
lol
-
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 17:01 last edited by@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
Fake news is fake news. Doesn't matter whether you like the way Trump uses the phrase.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 17:06 last edited by
Yes, and this isn’t it.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 17:15 last edited by
That opinion and $1 will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 17:18 last edited by
And yours simply proves my earlier point.
-
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:25 last edited by@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
-
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:44 last edited by@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
It doesn't matter. One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.
SSDD.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:45 last edited by
Is something in Bright's statement a lie? Or are you referring to the NYT taking Bright's statement and adding lies to it?
-
@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
It doesn't matter. One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.
SSDD.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:52 last edited by@Jolly said in A new whistleblower:
One can't argue with a True Believer. Trump could cure cancer and many would gripe about why it took him so long.SSDD.
Similarly, he could take a massive shit on the front lawn, and some would commend him for his amazing fertilizer.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 19:01 last edited by
Thou sayest.
-
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 01:33 last edited by@Larry said in A new whistleblower:
@jon-nyc said in A new whistleblower:
The reflexive use of the title 'fake news' is indicative of how Trump uses it, meaning news unfavorable to him.
No, it means lies being reported as facts.
You (and Jolly) need to read the piece again and see what exactly is reported as fact.
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 01:36 last edited by
My only input in this thread has been to address the definition of the term "fake news".
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 01:39 last edited by jon-nyc
Me too. You have it wrong.
Reporting the fact that someone claimed something isn’t fake news even if the claim turns out to be false.
For example. If President Xi came out tomorrow and announced that his investigators have determined that the virus originated in a US lab, that would be huge news. And the story that Xi made the claim would not not be fake news.
In other words the claim would be the story, and that indeed happens (in my hypothetical)
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 01:43 last edited by
It was the part where you stated that fake news was anything said that wasn't favorable to Trump that I took issue with. That's not the definition of fake news.
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 20:07 last edited by Ivorythumper
@George-K said in A new whistleblower:
The move was more than a year in the making — Bright had clashed with department leaders about his decisions and the scope of his authority — but came abruptly, said five current and former HHS officials.
"The head of the government office developing a coronavirus vaccine .... my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit,”
How do you develop a vaccine for a little understood virus and only use scientifically vetted solutions while rejecting HCQ for treatment, which was considered one of the safe and scientifically vetted solutions vericides, and was part of the S Korean protocol from mid February for COVID-19?
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 21:20 last edited by
Don't interrupt them, they're having a moment...