Media Bias

[Cunt]

Well, there's always Truth Social.

Included in the rumours are that the acquisitions company that arranged TS (DWAC?) is poised to buy twitter, once the Elon-Tender-offer-head-fake is concluded.

If Elon gets it, I understand the 'free-speech-shy' hating it, but do they realize that someone else is running it?

It's been clearly biased, since at LEAST the time they suspended a sitting president, and moved to suppress the story about his opponent having a corrupt family...

[Joe]

Well, there's always Truth Social.

Included in the rumours are that the acquisitions company that arranged TS (DWAC?) is poised to buy twitter, once the Elon-Tender-offer-head-fake is concluded.

If Elon gets it, I understand the 'free-speech-shy' hating it, but do they realize that someone else is running it?

It's been clearly biased, since at LEAST the time they suspended a sitting president, and moved to suppress the story about his opponent having a corrupt family...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Cunt]

Another biased source, surely.

https://newspunch.com/dutch-journalist- ... n-ukraine/

This is not the only striking parallel, according to the Dutch journalist. She has drawn attention to Kiev’s fake reports and “false flag” operations including the infamous Snake Island hoax, hype over Russia’s alleged “attack” on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), the now-debunked story of Russia’s “strike” on a Mariupol hospital, and the most recent Bucha provocation.

From a 'media bias' point of view, it's pretty easy to be distrustful of the 'Friends Of Disney' group. Their message is consistent, and draped with rightousness and morel fortitude. This Dutch writer though, seems to be Dutch, and if I'm to believe the news here, that means the reporting will be flawless.

Where IS Scot Dutchy, by the way?

[Brian Peacock]

Scot moved on.

[Cunt]

That's too bad. I'll miss his contribution. He was far more colourful than most.

[Cunt]

Fact-checkers are reported as biased, but NOT by their democrats.

[Brian Peacock]

"Every man has the right to an opinion but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Nor, above all, to persist in errors as to facts."
-- Bernard Baruch, 1946

[Cunt]

Fact-checkers can't define 'woman', or the distinction between woman and female, so their other work is probably as muddied by politics.

[Brian Peacock]

You recognise the importance of facts in supporting claims I presume?

[Cunt]

You recognise the importance of facts in supporting claims I presume?

Do you think I don't?

Do your facts thrive only in highly moderated areas? Or can I see those 'facts' discussed openly somewhere? You know, to better examine a 'fact'.

[Brian Peacock]

You recognise the importance of facts in supporting claims I presume?

Do you think I don't?

That's why I asked the question - to find out.

Do your facts thrive only in highly moderated areas? Or can I see those 'facts' discussed openly somewhere? You know, to better examine a 'fact'.

You didn't answer the question. :ʇɐǝʇ:

[Cunt]

I recognize the importance of facts, and the biased nature of many fact-checkers.

Which media smears do you recognize and openly condemn? I mean the popular ones, that are easy to see as smears.

[Cunt]

Just found a funny, by another telegrammer...
https://t.me/PepeMatter/9173

The woman who doxxed the Libs Of Tik Tok account and harassed her family members while masked outside was literally complaining about harassment induced "ptsd" not even a month ago.
These people have absolutely zero self awareness. It's almost comical.

The (possibly doctored) video accompanying was pretty great. I didn't hear the audio, but the visual was apt for a journalist of that status.

[Brian Peacock]

I recognize the importance of facts, and the biased nature of many fact-checkers.

But, you never dispute the facts of the fact-checkers when those facts are used to debunk a claim you made. Instead you lambaste fact-checkers, and those how fact-check your claims, for being biased for checking the facts in the first place. It seems that you and your pals recognise the importance of facts when it comes to supporting your claims, but throw a hissy when those claims are shown to be factually inaccurate. Do you think all facts are basically made to be biased one-way-or-another depending on the person presenting them?

[Cunt]

I recognize the importance of facts, and the biased nature of many fact-checkers.

But, you never dispute the facts of the fact-checkers when those facts are used to debunk a claim you made. Instead you lambaste fact-checkers, and those how fact-check your claims, for being biased for checking the facts in the first place. It seems that you and your pals recognise the importance of facts when it comes to supporting your claims, but throw a hissy when those claims are shown to be factually inaccurate. Do you think all facts are basically made to be biased one-way-or-another depending on the person presenting them?

I noticed you missed my question about which media smears you have recognized. I'll assume, if you don't answer, that you haven't noticed any.

What do your fact-checkers say about the Rittenhouse attacks? Is it the same as the things they said before the trial?

There were some pretty clear facts in question...