Media Bias

[Cunt]

As for the rest of your comment, you're trolling again, so I won't waste my time on it.

I asked for honest comment on a current issue of major media manipulation in service of a political party.

Call it trolling, or quickly switch to attacking the source. I will pay attention if you look more seriously at it. Others will enjoy your namecalling.

[Joe]

The interwebs does the work so you don’t have to

Fact Check: 'Louder with Crowder' Video Of Vacant Voter Addresses In Nevada, Michigan Includes Errors, Is NOT Proof Of 'Mass Voter Fraud' | Lead Stories

Lead Stories found at least two types of mistakes. In some instances, Crowder mistakenly reported on names and addresses that do not match what's in public voter records. In other instances, a county official told Lead Stories, it appears the addresses on file for the voters contain typos or clerical errors.

Hyperlinked time-codes in this article take the reader directly to that point in the video.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sloppy work by Crowder's team, especially if you're going to call out people by name on your show, and imply they committed election fraud. I don't know about Nevada, but here that's a fine or imprisonment.

I wondered about that too. In the video I saw that showed Crowder's team had failed to simply turn around to see the apartments that were supposedly "bogus", they mentioned that particular voter and the rest by name.

Also, and maybe I missed it, they don't seem to have taken the basic step a reporter should take: calling the county office that runs the elections and getting their statement.

[Cunt]

The interwebs does the work so you don’t have to

Fact Check: 'Louder with Crowder' Video Of Vacant Voter Addresses In Nevada, Michigan Includes Errors, Is NOT Proof Of 'Mass Voter Fraud' | Lead Stories

Lead Stories found at least two types of mistakes. In some instances, Crowder mistakenly reported on names and addresses that do not match what's in public voter records. In other instances, a county official told Lead Stories, it appears the addresses on file for the voters contain typos or clerical errors.

Hyperlinked time-codes in this article take the reader directly to that point in the video.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sloppy work by Crowder's team, especially if you're going to call out people by name on your show, and imply they committed election fraud. I don't know about Nevada, but here that's a fine or imprisonment.

I wondered about that too. In the video I saw that showed Crowder's team had failed to simply turn around to see the apartments that were supposedly "bogus", they mentioned that particular voter and the rest by name.

Also, and maybe I missed it, they don't seem to have taken the basic step a reporter should take: calling the county office that runs the elections and getting their statement.

I guess the election official he talked to was fake too. Wow, what a fooler that Crowder is.

Keep vigorously ignoring the blue-anon conspiracy the WaPo got caught doing. Wouldn't want to have to admit that Trump was right, eh?

[Joe]

Why should I give a fuck about your latest circle jerk? You're just trying to change the subject.

You brought up the Crowder story here, and it turns out he fumbled it. BarnettNewman did a good job digging up the factcheck you were to lazy to find. It sure looks like Crowder's biases might have contributed to the goof.

Yes, he did. Hang on to that, and keep celebrating.

I've moved on, and mentioned the lying media, and their ignorant sycophants.

Why not tell us about that Trump call to the Georgia official? Tell us the story of Trump being bad, Joe. I want to know if you fell for the WaPo bullshit, and if you did, what you think about it now.

Especially if you DID fall for it.

I 'fell for' Crowders lie. No problem saying so. I also have no problem listening to his show later, to see if he addresses it and how he does.

Because I'm not there to believe him, I'm there to enjoy a different perspective. Same as listening to contrary opinions here. If I don't know what you think of things, I only know what I think of things.

So tell me the Trump/Georgia story, Joe. Bonus points if you don't look up the latest updates before you do.

Well, if you've moved on, why respond to my comment? I didn't mention you in it, and other members might be interested in how Crowder's bias kept him from doing the checking Lead Stories did.

As for the rest of your comment, you're trolling again, so I won't waste my time on it.

I asked for honest comment on a current issue of major media manipulation in service of a political party.

Call it trolling, or quickly switch to attacking the source. I will pay attention if you look more seriously at it. Others will enjoy your namecalling.

I've restored the thread so your bullshit is plain for all to see. Your trolling, badgering me about some story I've indicated I don't care about. It's typical troll behavior. Bad Cunt!

[Cunt]

I've restored the thread so your bullshit is plain for all to see. Your trolling, badgering me about some story I've indicated I don't care about. It's typical troll behavior. Bad Cunt!

Not trolling, I only mentioned you because you aren't interested in it. With your lack of interest, I'll just go back to laughing textually at those who fell for that 'blue-anon' conspiracy theory about 'orange-man-bad'.

The Washington Post told a fiction about Trump saying things to a Georgia state election official. Their pals parroted it dutifully, causing it to seem like it was confirmed by several different sources.

It wasn't.

So I'm wondering who did fall for it, and is bold enough to review the story, and face the significance of this kind of media bias. I can (have) put up links, but obviously, my sources will be suspect, so it's probably best to use your own sources.

[Joe]

I've restored the thread so your bullshit is plain for all to see. Your trolling, badgering me about some story I've indicated I don't care about. It's typical troll behavior. Bad Cunt!

Not trolling, I only mentioned you because you aren't interested in it. With your lack of interest, I'll just go back to laughing textually at those who fell for that 'blue-anon' conspiracy theory about 'orange-man-bad'.

The Washington Post told a fiction about Trump saying things to a Georgia state election official. Their pals parroted it dutifully, causing it to seem like it was confirmed by several different sources.

It wasn't.

So I'm wondering who did fall for it, and is bold enough to review the story, and face the significance of this kind of media bias. I can (have) put up links, but obviously, my sources will be suspect, so it's probably best to use your own sources.

Yes, "just go back to laughing textually at" people on the forum.

[Cunt]

I get 'laughed at', and take it as merriment and normal.

Not mainly people on this forum, by the way. I think someone here mentioned the Georgia conspiracy theory, but I don't remember for sure. I could go search, but I'm not interested in listing someone's mistakes. If someone DID fall for it, and learns that they did, I AM interested in it. Reflecting on one's own mistakes is fairly interesting.

I was doing so about the Crowder story. He has exposed himself to legal challenge I think, but didn't mention it in todays podcast, so I'm not sure yet of his response. To be honest, I listen kind of in the background of donkey-work, so don't hear it all. I mostly just accept that someone found out he lied. I kind of expect he would, so it would be no real surprise.

But the WaPo 'blue-anon' bullshit is MUCH more significant. At least to me, because of the reach of the lie, relatively. A LOT of people believed that Turnip did something illegal in that call. I think it even got into the impeachment case.

Which reminds me, does anyone think the second impeachment should be undone because of the inclusion of clearly false stories/media smears?

[L'Emmerdeur]

There are two different phone calls being discussed here, and I'm not sure that all participants are taking that into account. There are recordings of both calls. In both of them Trump attempted to pressure officials in Georgia to do his bidding in regard to fiddling the election results.

The recording of the hour-long call with the Georgia Secretary of State was used in the second impeachment of Trump--no false narrative was constructed about it.

Washington Post misquoted Trump in regard to the other call, to the Georgia state investigator. However, those misquotes were paraphrases from the source used by the Post, and the paraphrases conveyed the accurate gist of the conversation: Trump was clearly attempting to pressure the investigator to produce the result he wanted, just as he did a week later in the call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

[Joe]

The interwebs does the work so you don’t have to

Fact Check: 'Louder with Crowder' Video Of Vacant Voter Addresses In Nevada, Michigan Includes Errors, Is NOT Proof Of 'Mass Voter Fraud' | Lead Stories



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sloppy work by Crowder's team, especially if you're going to call out people by name on your show, and imply they committed election fraud. I don't know about Nevada, but here that's a fine or imprisonment.

I wondered about that too. In the video I saw that showed Crowder's team had failed to simply turn around to see the apartments that were supposedly "bogus", they mentioned that particular voter and the rest by name.

Also, and maybe I missed it, they don't seem to have taken the basic step a reporter should take: calling the county office that runs the elections and getting their statement.

I guess the election official he talked to was fake too. Wow, what a fooler that Crowder is.

Keep vigorously ignoring the blue-anon conspiracy the WaPo got caught doing. Wouldn't want to have to admit that Trump was right, eh?

Did you miss where I said, "maybe I missed it?" They still didn't do their do diligence or they would have found their mistakes.

[Joe]

There are two different phone calls being discussed here, and I'm not sure that all participants are taking that into account. There are recordings of both calls. In both of them Trump attempted to pressure officials in Georgia to do his bidding in regard to fiddling the election results.

The recording of the hour-long call with the Georgia Secretary of State was used in the second impeachment of Trump--no false narrative was constructed about it.

Washington Post misquoted Trump in regard to the other call, to the Georgia state investigator. However, those misquotes were paraphrases from the source used by the Post, and the paraphrases conveyed the accurate gist of the conversation: Trump was clearly attempting to pressure the investigator to produce the result he wanted, just as he did a week later in the call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

So all this noise is about secondhand reporting being corrected when a transcript became available?

[Cunt]

There are two different phone calls being discussed here, and I'm not sure that all participants are taking that into account. There are recordings of both calls. In both of them Trump attempted to pressure officials in Georgia to do his bidding in regard to fiddling the election results.

The recording of the hour-long call with the Georgia Secretary of State was used in the second impeachment of Trump--no false narrative was constructed about it.

Washington Post misquoted Trump in regard to the other call, to the Georgia state investigator. However, those misquotes were paraphrases from the source used by the Post, and the paraphrases conveyed the accurate gist of the conversation: Trump was clearly attempting to pressure the investigator to produce the result he wanted, just as he did a week later in the call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

Thanks for weighing in. I just discovered my error, and realized there were 2 phone calls.

It sounds like you said 'misquoted' as if there was a small error, rather than fabricating quotes. It looks like they fabricated the quotes, pretending there is an 'anonymous source' to blame.

It's why I always treat the media's 'anonymous sources' as Q-shitposts. They deserve no more respect than that.

So all this noise is about secondhand reporting being corrected when a transcript became available?

Yes. I suggest listening to 'blue-anon' about their take on it, then listening to opposing interpretations. Then make up your mind.

[Joe]

There are two different phone calls being discussed here, and I'm not sure that all participants are taking that into account. There are recordings of both calls. In both of them Trump attempted to pressure officials in Georgia to do his bidding in regard to fiddling the election results.

The recording of the hour-long call with the Georgia Secretary of State was used in the second impeachment of Trump--no false narrative was constructed about it.

Washington Post misquoted Trump in regard to the other call, to the Georgia state investigator. However, those misquotes were paraphrases from the source used by the Post, and the paraphrases conveyed the accurate gist of the conversation: Trump was clearly attempting to pressure the investigator to produce the result he wanted, just as he did a week later in the call to the Georgia Secretary of State.

Thanks for weighing in. I just discovered my error, and realized there were 2 phone calls.

It sounds like you said 'misquoted' as if there was a small error, rather than fabricating quotes. It looks like they fabricated the quotes, pretending there is an 'anonymous source' to blame.

It's why I always treat the media's 'anonymous sources' as Q-shitposts. They deserve no more respect than that.

So all this noise is about secondhand reporting being corrected when a transcript became available?

Yes. I suggest listening to 'blue-anon' about their take on it, then listening to opposing interpretations. Then make up your mind.

I'll do what I was doing anyway. I'll wait and see what the Georgia Secretary of State and Attorney General come up with.

[Cunt]

I'll do what I was doing anyway. Expecting WaPo and the 'blue-anon' crowd pushing lies every chance they get, while fact-checking (lol) anything they think could damage them.

[Joe]

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[Hermit]

Turns out they made up quotes

Their source passed on paraphrases as quotes.

On the recording, there was no “find the fraud.” But there was this: “If you can get to Fulton, you are going to find things that are going to be unbelievable — the dishonesty,” said Trump.

There was no “national hero.” But there was this: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised. … People will say, ‘Great.’ Because that’s what it’s about — that ability to check and to make it right,” Trump told Watson.

fed the nation a fake story during a disputed election...

The presidential election took place in November last year. The article containing the paraphrases was published two months later. The senatorial election in Georgia was not a disputed election.

In fact, I think people will just go on thinking 'Orange Man Bad', because I've seen lies about him exposed before. No-one changes their mind, even with facts such as these.

Trump began his presidency with a blatant lie and kept right on going.

Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened



Changing minds about Trump is not justified by WaPo's mistake, for which it published a retraction and correction as soon as the original recording of the phone call surfaced.


Looks to me as though we have a Qanonbot embedded right here in this forum.