Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Actual fake news

As Eric Wemple recounts in the Washington Post, the liars on the right shat themselves a mighty shit.

Then, when the real press pointed out to them the ugly stink and the spreading brown stain on their drawers, they shat themselves again. And again. And yet again.

By tomorrow, maybe they'll have soiled their pants a fifth time. (You have to read to the end of Wemple's piece to get the full aroma of the rightwing.)

There's a joke at real newspapers about "hiding a story on page one." It has happened to me; you report a significant story and for some reason -- maybe Princess Diana died that day -- nobody sees it. But once the story is rubbed on your nose, you can no longer say you overlooked it. After that, if you say you didn't see it, you're lying.


  1. The divide in politics is so wide that people are under cognitive blindness.

  2. Yes. Besides Alex Jones's constant cries of 'false flag' after every rightwing atrocity, even on what should be non-emotional topics Americans cannot agree on plain facts.

  3. 'Kushnergate' was based on an anonymous letter.

    In other words, the WaPo relied on a walk-in letter from a person it can't identify, who relied on an alleged account by Russia's top diplomat about what was discussed with Kushner. No wonder the paper hedged its "scoop" by repeatedly using the term "apparent" throughout the story.

    There are plenty more examples of MSM fake news to be had.

  4. Yet the reports keep coming true

  5. Yet the reports keep coming true

    Yet they don't -- they are all fact free insinuations from anonymous sources.

    Go ahead. Find one that isn't.

  6. Flynn.

    As for anonymous sources, they can be useful. I have been retired for 5 years but I still get tips. 3 weeks ago I got an anonymous claim about a death. I didn't know anything about the sources but the claims were detailed enough to be checkable. And suspicious enough to go to the police (the sources were afraid to do it).

    Dunno how it will turn out but after getting the coroner's report (which I could not do), it's a homicide investigation.

  7. Harry, without a reference, your claim is worthless. Moreover, Flynn got fired almost from the git-go: he is old news.

    I'm talking about the ongoing MSM effort to delegitimize Trump via anonymous sources whose leaks are federal crimes, and are devoid of evidence.

    I seem to remember the NYT and WaPo trumpeting some story about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow. Anything to that, or was it just another example of MSM ethics doing a perfect imitation of your regrettable scatology.

  8. Flynn did not get fired almost from the git-go, and without the Post's first story, he wouldn't have been fired at all.

    Trump is doing a fine job of delegitimizing himself.

    In any event, the Kushner story may have legs, whereas the rightwing smear of the Times will always be fake. And not just fake but persisted in for a long time after anyone could see its fakery.

  9. Hmmm. Skipper, your timing for getting on your high horse about anonymous links was really bad, eh? The leak to The Intercept was anonymous but authentic

  10. Flynn did not get fired almost from the git-go...

    One month in is close enough to git-go. Then there is another question, which you have unwittingly begged: How is it that the Post was able to write the story in the first place? Because it received leaked information that should have landed the leaker in jail.

    NB: That is not a comment on the information's validity or otherwise.

    Now, compare and contrast with a quote from your link in the post:

    So here is take two. In fact, it was the New York Times Charlie Savage who first broke the NSA violations and the FISA court’s intervention in an exclusive that was published on Page A-1 on April 28. The Washington Post followed … with an article that cited the Times reporting ...

    The NYT apparently jumped right on information that it (also illegally released) very quickly. One problem: the NSA violations in the leak had been going on for years, not a mere matter of a couple months.

    Which means you are casting the same blind eye that the NYT and the WaPo have: a moral equivalence that does not exist. The NSA violations -- far worse than anything Flynn as been accused of -- went on for years. Regardless of the reporting, it is beyond unhinged to monkey throw your scatalogical musings in one direction, while ignoring the other entirely.

    But wait, there's more. That Fox report isn't a smear, it is a mistake, a self-inflicted wound. How did it happen? Confirmation bias. The NYT and WaPo have so often covered themselves in so much merde, (Gosnell, John Edwards, the Clinton Foundation (and that is just off the top of my head) that it was all to easy to assume just another instance of the collectivist newspapers tilting the scales.

    But a mistake is not a smear, at least when those who made the mistake eventually cop to it. Completely unlike, say, you and "They chanted 'Let him die!'". You are the poster child for smearing others, with instances beyond counting. It is sheer hypocrisy for you to be pointing the finger at anyone else.

    And then there is the further matter of what you are ignoring. Besides the prostitutes in Moscow, which you sidestep, as is your wont when confronted with unwelcome reality, there is the endless stream of anonymous insinuations devoid of evidence regarding collusion with the Russians. Oh, and Katie Curic's revolting lies. The UVA "rape" case. The Gifford shooting. The WaPo and the Koch brothers, the NYT's series on climate change that is pure, fact free propaganda.

    I could go on, but my point is made. A mistake is not a smear; it is a self inflicted wound. In contrast, the NYT and WaPo, and you, engage in routine smearing, and never acknowledge it.

    And you think the right has shat themselves?

    You are positively dripping in it.

  11. If you make a mistake, and it is incontrovertibly shown to be error, and you keep doing it, that's smear.

    For your information, the prostitute story isn't anonymous.

    And you defended Trump's fact-free claim about millions of illegal voters.

    Confirmation bias, by the way, is not considered a response by real journalists.

  12. And you defended Trump's fact-free claim about millions of illegal voters.

    Stop. Stop right there. In a disgusting post you become completely unhinged over a journalistic error, then, without a hint of irony, repeat it.

    You have three options: provide the direct quote that shows I defended Trump's claim; or, because it doesn't exist, show you have as much integrity as Fox News and provide a retraction and an apology.

    Or, option three, the one you always choose: lie, dissemble, move goal posts, change the subject, prevaricate.