Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

Seems someone's keen for my attention.

O'Keefe's proven dishonesty is a matter of public record. Go look it up.

[Cunt]

Seems someone's keen for my attention.

O'Keefe's proven dishonesty is a matter of public record. Go look it up.

I did.

He was right about a lot more than he was wrong about. Over years.

When did you discover that the Biden laptop was covered up by a biased media? Immediately when the media companies circled the wagons and published the letter from 51 former intelligence officials? Or was it later?

[Cunt]

O'Keefe's proven dishonesty

It's not 'proven' to me.

If you want to tell me which 'proven dishonesty' convinced you that he was an untrustworthy source, it might make some difference.

See, whatever the 'evidence' available online by his detractors and objective sources, I haven't a clue what convinced you.

So I know how to value his stories, but not yours.

For example, did you know that media companies who lied about the laptop, are still having difficulty talking about it now that we are post-election?

Those places are MUCH less trustworthy than OMG Media and James O'Keefe.

[Brian Peacock]

You're under the mistaken impression that I'm here to represent and/or defend the non-alternative-media. I don't know why you keep playing those cards - you went all in on that a long time ago and lost your stake.

[Cunt]

You don't have to. Neither of us has to make a good case. I think we both accept that the corporate/establishment media is pretty corrupt.

On the Crowder show, they do an Epstein interview that explains a media bias, but a bias might prevent many from taking it in.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/scien ... ses-google

In this special episode, Gerlald A sits down with Dr. Robert Epstein to discuss Google censorship as well as election integrity.

[macdoc]

[JimC]

Conventional media is not a monolithic bloc. It contains a wide range of politics and motivations. Some media tend to be somewhat more neutral and fact-based than others. If you chose to disbelieve all of the information the media provide then you exhibit the paranoia of deranged conspiracy theorists. The information available has to be looked at judiciously, with some skepticism, but comparing a variety of sources assists in gaining useful insights.

[Cunt]

Conventional media is not a monolithic bloc. It contains a wide range of politics and motivations. Some media tend to be somewhat more neutral and fact-based than others. If you chose to disbelieve all of the information the media provide then you exhibit the paranoia of deranged conspiracy theorists. The information available has to be looked at judiciously, with some skepticism, but comparing a variety of sources assists in gaining useful insights.

Who was most wrong, for the longest, with regards to the Biden Laptop story?

Or did the whole bloc move in lockstep, while declaring there was no evidence?

[JimC]

Have you thought that maybe there's actually no evidence of the whole laptop thing? He's certainly in legal trouble about drugs and guns, which has been widely reported...

(The lack of evidence doesn't preclude him being an avaricious conniving sleaze ball, just like many other pillars of capitalism)

[Cunt]

Have you thought that maybe there's actually no evidence of the whole laptop thing? He's certainly in legal trouble about drugs and guns, which has been widely reported...

(The lack of evidence doesn't preclude him being an avaricious conniving sleaze ball, just like many other pillars of capitalism)

The evidence on the laptop has been corroborated by others in email chains (for instance) and the considerable evidence in there isn't the big story.

The cover-up of that story is the big story.

[JimC]

Then those who have clear and undisputed evidence of the laptop and its cover-up should be presenting that information to the police...

[pErvinalia]

Biden's police state?

[Cunt]

Then those who have clear and undisputed evidence of the laptop and its cover-up should be presenting that information to the police...

Yes, of course.

And if it weren't covered up, you would know exactly who presented the information to law enforcement, and when.

[JimC]

Or there is no cover up, and no evidence...

Any time now...

[Cunt]

Oh, there is certainly plenty of evidence.

There is also a chorus of mainstream media pretending there isn't any. Glen Greenwald departed the Intercept over it. The news agency he founded. Any guesses as to why?

Because that is pretty plain and easy to find evidence of the cover up. In case anyone doubted there was a massive coordinated campaign to cover up that story.

As to what was on the laptop, well if 51 former intelligence agents sign a letter, my guess is that lots of people will try not to look at any of it. Burisma, Biontech, Chinese companies and that's if you don't care a bit about all the drugs and whores.

I wonder if Channel 4 will survey his past sexual partners to see if they can drum up some allegations...Surely THEY won't be part of the cover-up!