FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess you prefer Trump's Chief Economic Advisor, Larry Kudlow, who never studied economics (he majored in history at Univ. of Rochester).

That Time Fox Business’ Larry Kudlow Touted Liz Truss’ ‘Terrific’ Economic Plan, Compared It to Kevin McCarthy’s

https://www.yahoo.com/video/time-fox...204414777.html

“The U.S. midterm elections cavalry arrived early in London. What do I mean by that?” Kudlow says in the Fox Business clip. “Well, the new British prime minister, Liz Truss, has laid out a terrific supply-side economic growth plan which looks a lot like the basic thrust of Kevin McCarthy’s Commitment to America plan.”

Kudlow continues, heaping praise on Truss for “slashing tax rates and deregulating energy.”

“I just love it,” Kudlow beamed before suggesting that the “liberal business media” was wrong in “trashing her plan.” At the end of the clip (shared by MeidasTouch), Kudlow says, “Truss has it exactly right.”

Yeah, Whell's kind of "expert", lol.

[RickeyM]

Methinks our friend doth protest too much

[Oerets]

We have witnessed what losing one election and the results.

This cult will have to run it course.

Just today at the Y a group of this brainwashed zombies cult were repeating the conspiracies and lies. Full of hatred and anger at any and all who do not think like them.

Learned they call MSMBC MSLSD as the were making their remarks as I watched the channel.
Making fun of Biden and Fetterman. How beautiful Lake is ...

[donquixote99]

Does more than ignore them, he denies them, parroting the lie that Fox News is fair and balanced.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What has happened in America is that we have a two-tier system of (journalism) standards. We expect “real journalists” to tell us what they really think. Imperfectly, and with some biases; we know they do and will make mistakes and all that. Granted. But what we expect from “conservative journalists” is entirely different. We expect them to act as perpetual propagandists for their team. Those expectations are baked into the culture, on both sides. No one questions them.

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/jo...he-medias-2024

And that, my friends, forms the entire basis of this thread that Whell started. He only criticizes the MSM for being less than perfect while ignoring mainstream wingnut media (e.g., Fox News) and their daily shameless, deliberate lies and propaganda.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Does more than ignore them, he denies them, parroting the lie that Fox News is fair and balanced.

In fact, I reference Fox News and/or conservatively-slanted news outlets nowhere in this thread as best I can recall. That said, this thread goes back years and stands currently at 268 pages, so I'm not going back and double-checking.

This thread was begun in the wake of the 2016 election, where news outlets and polling consistently reported a significant lead for Clinton over Trump.
So, yeah, it was an indictment of what continues to be a media that is not interested in reporting a news story, but more interested in pushing narratives.

If you're looking for recent examples if this, I love this comparison:

Major media sources, including the Washington Post, continue to refer to any attempts to question the 2020 election as "the Big Lie". I love the purposeful hijack of what previously had been a Joseph Goebbels reference.

However, underneath that pious veneer, there's this, which I find hilarious:

If you insist that the 2020 election was stolen, you’ll be accused of pushing “the big lie,” inciting an insurrection, and attacking democracy.

But if you believe that Hillary Clinton was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election, that just makes you a Democrat.

...according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, 72% of Democrats still believe that Russia “succeeded” in altering the outcome of the 2016 election, putting Donald Trump in the White House.

As usual, the media (and likely some of you guys) want to have it both ways.

Anyone who has questions about the 2020 election is an "election denier", a right-wing propagandist", or any other number of colorful adjectives that you folks dream up. But Hillary can refer to Trump as an "illegitimate president" and whine about the election being stolen, the friendly media gives her a pass...likely because they agree with her.

Fake news continues to propagate thanks to our "unbiased" media.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

In fact, I reference Fox News and/or conservatively-slanted news outlets nowhere in this thread as best I can recall. That said, this thread goes back years and stands currently at 268 pages, so I'm not going back and double-checking.

This thread was begun in the wake of the 2016 election, where news outlets and polling consistently reported a significant lead for Clinton over Trump.
So, yeah, it was an indictment of what continues to be a media that is not interested in reporting a news story, but more interested in pushing narratives.

If you're looking for recent examples if this, I love this comparison:

Major media sources, including the Washington Post, continue to refer to any attempts to question the 2020 election as "the Big Lie". I love the purposeful hijack of what previously had been a Joseph Goebbels reference.

However, underneath that pious veneer, there's this, which I find hilarious:

If you insist that the 2020 election was stolen, you’ll be accused of pushing “the big lie,” inciting an insurrection, and attacking democracy.

But if you believe that Hillary Clinton was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election, that just makes you a Democrat.


...according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, 72% of Democrats still believe that Russia “succeeded” in altering the outcome of the 2016 election, putting Donald Trump in the White House.

As usual, the media (and likely some of you guys) want to have it both ways.

Anyone who has questions about the 2020 election is an "election denier", a right-wing propagandist", or any other number of colorful adjectives that you folks dream up. But Hillary can refer to Trump as an "illegitimate president" and whine about the election being stolen, the friendly media gives her a pass...likely because they agree with her.

Fake news continues to propagate thanks to our "unbiased" media.

Funny how Ms. Clinton conceded the next day and attended Trump's coronation while your boy couldn't sum up the courage to do the same when he lost to Biden. smh

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

In fact, I reference Fox News and/or conservatively-slanted news outlets nowhere in this thread as best I can recall. That said, this thread goes back years and stands currently at 268 pages, so I'm not going back and double-checking.

This thread was begun in the wake of the 2016 election, where news outlets and polling consistently reported a significant lead for Clinton over Trump.
So, yeah, it was an indictment of what continues to be a media that is not interested in reporting a news story, but more interested in pushing narratives.

If you're looking for recent examples if this, I love this comparison:

Major media sources, including the Washington Post, continue to refer to any attempts to question the 2020 election as "the Big Lie". I love the purposeful hijack of what previously had been a Joseph Goebbels reference.

However, underneath that pious veneer, there's this, which I find hilarious:

If you insist that the 2020 election was stolen, you’ll be accused of pushing “the big lie,” inciting an insurrection, and attacking democracy.

But if you believe that Hillary Clinton was the legitimate winner of the 2016 election, that just makes you a Democrat.

...according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, 72% of Democrats still believe that Russia “succeeded” in altering the outcome of the 2016 election, putting Donald Trump in the White House.

As usual, the media (and likely some of you guys) want to have it both ways.

Anyone who has questions about the 2020 election is an "election denier", a right-wing propagandist", or any other number of colorful adjectives that you folks dream up. But Hillary can refer to Trump as an "illegitimate president" and whine about the election being stolen, the friendly media gives her a pass...likely because they agree with her.

Fake news continues to propagate thanks to our "unbiased" media.

Once again, the length of your response correlates directly to its speciousness.

Two quick undisputed facts -

Russia did indeed interfere in the 2016 election with the specific purpose of getting Trump, a Putin fanboy with an ongoing (and undisclosed) hotel deal in Moscow, elected with the encouragement, acquiescence and apparent cooperation of the Trump campaign (Manafort, Gates, Stone).

Trump did not win the 2020 election yet he persisted in telling the lie that he did despite knowing full well that he lost and that lie resulted in a violent insurrection against the US government that he actively encouraged and idly sat back and let unfold.

And for the most part, the MSM reported these undisputed facts correctly while Fox News didn't.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Once again, the length of your response correlates directly to its speciousness.

Two quick undisputed facts -

Russia did indeed interfere in the 2016 election with the specific purpose of getting Trump, a Putin fanboy with an ongoing (and undisclosed) hotel deal in Moscow, elected with the encouragement, acquiescence and apparent cooperation of the Trump campaign (Manafort, Gates, Stone).

If you need to misquote what I said to make your point, you're grasping at straws...again. I didn't use the word "interfere" anywhere in the post above. I have no doubt there was "interference".

I did specifically use the words "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign, which has been debunked, but which the media openly and errantly reported on.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Trump did not win the 2020 election yet he persisted in telling the lie that he did despite knowing full well that he lost and that lie resulted in a violent insurrection against the US government that he actively encouraged and idly sat back and let unfold.

And for the most part, the MSM reported these undisputed facts correctly while Fox News didn't.

My point is that Trump, and anyone else, who questions the 2020 election has a special, pejorative nickname(s) that the press continues to use - as the WaPo article shows - and they generally don't bother confining that adjective to the editorial pages. Dems like Clinton, Stacy Abrams, and others get a complete pass when they rant on about elections. But, I'm sure that lack of balanced perspective doesn't bother you.

Whether Trump, on Jan 6th "actively encouraged and idly sat back and let unfold" the riot, that's doubtful. Lost in the hyperventilating about January 6th were Trump's words from his speech that morning from the park across from the White House. "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Those words suggest to me that Trump expected a peaceful protest. I don't think he encouraged anything, but I also think that he could have done more once the riot was underway.

Also, whether the MSM has reported on the facts correctly regarding January 6th? I think they've generally treated it like they treated the Russia Collusion narrative. This is to say that they've stressed some facts (and people) over others when it suits the narrative. I'll never forget how Cassidy Hutchinson - someone no one ever heard of and someone who rarely had contact with Trump - was treated as someone whose words about what Trump did or said should be taken as gospel. Words that generally have not been corroborated....

I'll stop here, because I know longer posts are hard for you to read.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

If you need to misquote what I said to make your point, you're grasping at straws...again.

I didn't attempt to quote (or misquote) you. If I had, I would have used this board's quote function. I simply stated two undisputed facts, which of course you disputed because you simply cannot abide anything negative being said about your Dear Leader, even if true.

As for the content of the remainder of your post, Macbeth summed it up nicely - "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Does more than ignore them, he denies them, parroting the lie that Fox News is fair and balanced.

FAUX "news" doesn't even claim to be "fair and balanced" anymore

whell, care to present examples of Hillary whining about the 2016 election being stolen then juxtapose that with DJT's continuing nationwide grievance tour of spouting the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. For bonus points point to Hillary constantly soliciting funds to "Save America"? For extra bonus points cite where Hillary refused to cede the election to Donny.
I'll wait.