Debunked: Infowars' & Mancow's claim that Harry Lennix trained Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have major issues with TPP. And the media in Europe has mostly been very, very quiet on the matter - with some notable opinion pieces being the exceptions.

Everything I've read about it has been a nightmare yet it's being negotiated in secret and rammed through while us mushrooms get fed bullshit and are kept in the dark. But I'm sure someone will be along to hip me to how I've gotten it all wrong and do the "it's just" shuffle.
 
I think often the problem is false moral equivalency. Alex Jones/Prison Planet/Mancow all have severe believability issues. If you do think Alex Jones is spot on, we've had various threads showing his outlandish behavior, his blatant bigotry (just watch the Piers Morgan interview), and the shameless self promotion. Also while the MSM "gets it wrong", when they are caught, they tend to fess up. They say they screwed up and apologize. To my knowledge Alex Jones hasn't recanted on any number of things he's gotten wrong, and he's been VERY spectacularly wrong.

No source is always spot on. The msm fucks up all the time, but they get a pass by the apologists to the degree where it's just part of the dance. And they do not apologize for the mistakes or changes in the story. They just go on about their business like nothing happened.

You mock cters for yelling false flag at every turn, but never stop to wonder why. Well, it's because the msm routinely fucks up the story right out of the box.

Oh, but there are bound to be mistakes in reporting initially and yadda yadda.
Really? Why is that, exactly? Because in their rush to get out product, they rely on sloppy journalism. Instead of doing reliable work it's just crank out something and fix it in the mix if it turns out to be wrong.

So on one hand, you crucify AJ or PP or the like for being wrong, but routinely absolve CNN and the rest for shitty journalism thrown out in a rush to "get the story" and then blame the cters for calling them on it.

Face it, all the false flag stuff you folks ridicule sprouts up because of the bad reporting done by the msm. Then when the details they fucked up initially go down the memory hole you turn around and castigate the ct loonies for not believing the now sanitized official story and turn the smear machine to stun.

Yeah, I'd say there's a false moral equivalency.
 
This thread just goes to show how some people will cling to a belief no matter how much proof they are shown that they're wrong.
 
No source is always spot on. The msm fucks up all the time, but they get a pass by the apologists to the degree where it's just part of the dance. And they do not apologize for the mistakes or changes in the story. They just go on about their business like nothing happened.

You mock cters for yelling false flag at every turn, but never stop to wonder why. Well, it's because the msm routinely fucks up the story right out of the box.
Oh, but there are bound to be mistakes in reporting initially and yadda yadda. Really? Why is that, exactly? Because in their rush to get out product, they rely on sloppy journalism. Instead of doing reliable work it's just crank out something and fix it in the mix if it turns out to be wrong.

So on one hand, you crucify AJ or PP or the like for being wrong, but routinely absolve CNN and the rest for shitty journalism thrown out in a rush to "get the story" and then blame the cters for calling them on it.

Face it, all the false flag stuff you folks ridicule sprouts up because of the bad reporting done by the msm. Then when the details they fucked up initially go down the memory hole you turn around and castigate the ct loonies for not believing the now sanitized official story and turn the smear machine to stun.

Yeah, I'd say there's a false moral equivalency.
In a rush to get the story Alex Jones and his infowars lackeys changed their story numerous times.

The difference is that when MSM sources makes a mistake, there are numerous Pele who will call them out on it. But when the alternative media makes mistakes and even outright lies, nobody is there to call them out on it because they're not considered to be relevant. That essentially allows them to exist in their own world separated from reality and ftee from any criticisms. This in turn gives their audience the illusion of accuracy.
 
In a rush to get the story Alex Jones and his infowars lackeys changed their story numerous times.

The difference is that when MSM sources makes a mistake, there are numerous Pele who will call them out on it. But when the alternative media makes mistakes and even outright lies, nobody is there to call them out on it because they're not considered to be relevant. That essentially allows them to exist in their own world separated from reality and ftee from any criticisms. This in turn gives their audience the illusion of accuracy.

Uh, hello? The only people calling out the msm are the alternative media or those you dismiss as cters. You folks who cheerlead for it just take whatever it says without question. You are just flailing here.
 
Uh, hello? The only people calling out the msm are the alternative media or those you dismiss as cters. You folks who cheerlead for it just take whatever it says without question. You are just flailing here.

Sounds a bit impolite. Also drifting off topic.

Nobody is cheerleading for the media. The failing of the media are well recognized. That does not mean Infowars should be immune to criticism. Nor does it mean that the regular media are somehow just as bad as Alex Jones.
 
Nobody is cheerleading for the media. The failing of the media are well recognized.

By who? When's the last time anyone here debunked an msm article or issue?

That does not mean Infowars should be immune to criticism. Nor does it mean that the regular media are somehow just as bad as Alex Jones.

Nobody is saying IW is immune from criticism. But what happens here is not criticism. It's a blanket denunciation as having no worth at all. Yet you guys always have ready made excuses when msm stuff is criticized. How many times have you yourself used the "there are always going to be inaccuracies" line when defending agaist false flag charges? Those charges come from msm mistakes and distortions. But those distortions and mistakes are excused and its back to vilifying infowars and other alt sites for jumping on them.
 
Everything I've read about it has been a nightmare yet it's being negotiated in secret and rammed through while us mushrooms get fed bullshit and are kept in the dark. But I'm sure someone will be along to hip me to how I've gotten it all wrong and do the "it's just" shuffle.

The entire history of TPP from inception to current negotiations is available from the Office of the US Trade Representative. You can look at public comments, and even ask a question or leave a comment yourself. How much more not-so-secret do you want?

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

Once upon a time, not so long ago, I was on the infrastructure and buildings maintenance crew at an eco-village. We had open maintenance department meetings every Monday morning, except nobody but maintenance group folks ever showed up to provide input or express concerns so we just presented our decisions and/or plans to the general weekly community meetings. We weren't trying to be secretive, just that nobody cared to sit in on our discussions.

One of the points of contention I've seen presented by alternative media are the stringent copyright protections proposed for the treaty. Thing is, a lot of people, myself included, happen to agree with protecting intellectual property rights. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Anyhoooo, discussion of the TPP probably deserves its own thread.
 
By who? When's the last time anyone here debunked an msm article or issue?

Nobody is saying IW is immune from criticism. But what happens here is not criticism. It's a blanket denunciation as having no worth at all. Yet you guys always have ready made excuses when msm stuff is criticized. How many times have you yourself used the "there are always going to be inaccuracies" line when defending agaist false flag charges? Those charges come from msm mistakes and distortions. But those distortions and mistakes are excused and its back to vilifying infowars and other alt sites for jumping on them.

I'd love to debunk an MSM article. However as was noted before, there's a lot more eyes on the MSM, so it's rare to get a chance.

Do you have an example of where you have debunked an MSM article? And I mean an actual debunking, not just criticising tone.
 
I'd love to debunk an MSM article. However as was noted before, there's a lot more eyes on the MSM, so it's rare to get a chance.

It's rare to get a chance to debunk and msm article? And yet you just said: "The failing of the media are well recognized."

How do you square these two statements?
 
The entire history of TPP from inception to current negotiations is available from the Office of the US Trade Representative. You can look at public comments, and even ask a question or leave a comment yourself. How much more not-so-secret do you want?

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

Once upon a time, not so long ago, I was on the infrastructure and buildings maintenance crew at an eco-village. We had open maintenance department meetings every Monday morning, except nobody but maintenance group folks ever showed up to provide input or express concerns so we just presented our decisions and/or plans to the general weekly community meetings. We weren't trying to be secretive, just that nobody cared to sit in on our discussions.

One of the points of contention I've seen presented by alternative media are the stringent copyright protections proposed for the treaty. Thing is, a lot of people, myself included, happen to agree with protecting intellectual property rights. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Anyhoooo, discussion of the TPP probably deserves its own thread.

Yes, it does deserve its own thread, so maybe Mick will split it off so it can be explored.
 
It's rare to get a chance to debunk and msm article? And yet you just said: "The failing of the media are well recognized."

How do you square these two statements?

It's rare because factual inaccuracies are generally picked up very quickly - often within hours. And a large part of the failings of the media consist of systematic bias or preferential treatment, not outright lies.

What I generally end up debunking is stuff that gets passed around on Facebook, etc. Stuff that, like Alex Jones, does not really have that many critical eyes on it.
 

This thread just goes to show how some people will cling to a belief no matter how much proof they are shown that they're wrong.
What belief is being clung to and by whom?

What belief is being clung to and by whom?

The belief that Obama is an "actor" and was trained by Lennix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By who? When's the last time anyone here debunked an msm article or issue?

I'm not sure I understand you, usually the MSM updates stories so they are corrected. CTers cling to the first reports as proof the MSM is lying or covering up, or there is a false flag. Such as initially reporting the incorrect number of gunmen.
 
...How many times have you yourself used the "there are always going to be inaccuracies" line when defending agaist false flag charges? ...
Because it's in the context of them claiming 'this detail is wrong, therefore the media is orchestrating a hoax', so it has to be emphasised that mistakes are an organic part of the reporting process especially in breaking-news.
This perfectly reasonable response to irrational conclusions gets turned into us 'defending the media' by people like you.
Trying to explain that wrong reporting does not equal proof of a false flag hoax, does not equal defending the MSM media in general, just in that particular detail of claimed deliberate hoax. You're jumping to strawman conclusions.

With regards to this story, why is criticism not warranted? It's flat-out false reporting spun to fit a very obvious agenda - this doesn't strike you as less than worthy journalism? Why are *you* defending it?
 
Uh, hello? The only people calling out the msm are the alternative media or those you dismiss as cters. You folks who cheerlead for it just take whatever it says without question. You are just flailing here.
That's not true. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, their respective pundits along with many others critize each other quite often.

CT media criticizes the MSM and the "official story" because It's literally all they can do. What is their official story? They don't have one. In Jones' 18 years of broadcasting along with his access to so called insiders and intelligence analysts Alex Jones has NEVER come up with his own story to explain anything that he questions. What he and other like minded people are best at its throwing things at a wall to see what will stick and then based on that, he'll develop broader theories such as mass extermination.
The reason this tactic is employed is so that their only job is to criticize as much as possible. Doing this, they can avoid the labor of doing what real investigators do which is to try to figure out what happened. This leaves a blank slate for their followers to piece together their own theories as to what really happened which basically serves as entertainment.
And ultimately if Jones and Co. were to devolop their own official theories about 9/11, Boston Bombing, Obama's origins etc. They would consequently open themselves to criticisms from inside and outside conspiracy circles. For any given event, there are numerous conspiracy theories that will emerge and dialing down to one theory will inevitably result in strong opposition from those who believe something else.

Bunk just like this story can be applied to any "Obama is not one of us" conspiracy theory. From the birthers to the people who think he's groomed by the CIA to herald a socialist take over.
 
I'm not sure I understand you, usually the MSM updates stories so they are corrected. CTers cling to the first reports as proof the MSM is lying or covering up, or there is a false flag. Such as initially reporting the incorrect number of gunmen.

Why do they make so many mistakes? Why do they get so many details wrong? Either they just suck at what they do or are massaging stories. Either way, their mistakes don't count and they get a pass. If PP gets it wrong, it's pounced upon as proof of nefarious intent.

You can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways and there is certainly a double standard.

Meanwhile, that double standard is used to discredit one source completely. On the strength of a puff piece about this Lennix guy, now PJW is a total dunce and PP/IW is nothing better than tabloid journalism.
 
Why do they make so many mistakes? Why do they get so many details wrong? Either they just suck at what they do or are massaging stories. Either way, their mistakes don't count and they get a pass. If PP gets it wrong, it's pounced upon as proof of nefarious intent.

You can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways and there is certainly a double standard.

Meanwhile, that double standard is used to discredit one source completely. On the strength of a puff piece about this Lennix guy, now PJW is a total dunce and PP/IW is nothing better than tabloid journalism.

The big difference is that MSM are out there gathering information, conducting interviews, etc. while AJ just pretends to get all riled up and rages on like some kind of lunatic. What AJ/PP/IW does is not journalism, they just make shit up. Didn't take me long after first discovering AJ to figure that out.
 
The big difference is that MSM are out there gathering information, conducting interviews, etc. while AJ just pretends to get all riled up and rages on like some kind of lunatic. What AJ/PP/IW does is not journalism, they just make shit up. Didn't take me long after first discovering AJ to figure that out.
That's all fine and dandy about Alex Jones. But the MSM, as we've already established, has a tendency to get things wrong. They're no better in that they're just 'throwing things at the wall to hope they stick.' I mean, look at how many times the Sandy Hook stories alone changed. And reporters were claiming to get their information from 'official sources' and 'law enforcement officials' left and right. Was someone flat out lying? These things bring about skepticism in a hurry. That doesn't mean rush straight into 'conspiracy - cover up' or in the case of Alex Jones, 'mass extinction of humans', etc, but it should leave anyone with any sense questioning anything the MSM spits out in the same way they filter an Infowars article.
 
The big difference is that MSM are out there gathering information, conducting interviews, etc. while AJ just pretends to get all riled up and rages on like some kind of lunatic. What AJ/PP/IW does is not journalism, they just make shit up. Didn't take me long after first discovering AJ to figure that out.

Sorry, but this an inaccurate assessment. To be clear, I virtually never listen to AJ. But I do stop by PP and they most certainly do journalism. Here is a piece from today that is informative and timely and substantiated. It is not just a rant.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-media-wars-the-empire-strikes-back.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 19, 2013

The dinosaur media is in terminal decline but it will not go down without a fight, which is why the establishment is relying on a number of different techniques to remain relevant while strangling its competition.

Recent polls show that trust in mainstream media is hovering at record lows. Print journalism is fast becoming a distant memory as the establishment press rapidly loses its audience to independent media outlets on the Internet.

Far from accepting its fate meekly, the system has rolled out the big guns in a desperate bid to either eliminate or assimilate the burgeoning alternative press.

The latest example is buried within the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) and concerns “intellectual property enforcement.” Put simply, the agreement will mandate ISPs to remove online content without the need for a burden of proof or any kind of legal process, greasing the skids for aggressive and disproportionate censorship-driven takedowns.

“If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” reads a Wikileaks statement. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”
Content from External Source
 
Precisely. Discrimination is the key and to accept either msm or alt m blindly is foolish.

Nobody does, so that's a straw man.

But to suggest they are exactly the same is hardly sensible either, especially if we are comparing specific instances like Alex Jones.
 
Sorry, but this an inaccurate assessment. To be clear, I virtually never listen to AJ. But I do stop by PP and they most certainly do journalism. Here is a piece from today that is informative and timely and substantiated. It is not just a rant.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-media-wars-the-empire-strikes-back.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 19, 2013

The dinosaur media is in terminal decline but it will not go down without a fight, which is why the establishment is relying on a number of different techniques to remain relevant while strangling its competition.

Recent polls show that trust in mainstream media is hovering at record lows. Print journalism is fast becoming a distant memory as the establishment press rapidly loses its audience to independent media outlets on the Internet.

Far from accepting its fate meekly, the system has rolled out the big guns in a desperate bid to either eliminate or assimilate the burgeoning alternative press.

The latest example is buried within the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) and concerns “intellectual property enforcement.” Put simply, the agreement will mandate ISPs to remove online content without the need for a burden of proof or any kind of legal process, greasing the skids for aggressive and disproportionate censorship-driven takedowns.

“If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” reads a Wikileaks statement. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”
Content from External Source

You call that journalism? hahaha. 'Round here we call that an opinion. Hmmmm, think there might be a reason that people like Paul Joseph Watson who don't produce much of anything original while simply riding on the coattails of others would be against strict enforcement of copyrights?
 
Nobody does, so that's a straw man.

But to suggest they are exactly the same is hardly sensible either, especially if we are comparing specific instances like Alex Jones.
And that's a straw man as well. My point wasn't that Alex Jones and MSM are equal, I'm saying the MSM should be filtered with the same skepticism as an Infowars articles. It's pretty obvious Jones takes things way overboard. But it's also obvious the MSM screws up a lot, especially on 'breaking news' or even just 'first reports.' And subsequent reports even.

Point being, as I (roughly) said in another thread, it's up to the person reading the article or watching the news story to verify as best as possible what's true, or just ignore it altogether if you're not going to verify the truth of a piece of information. It seems some people take Alex Jones and instantly say 'yeah it's AJ therefore WRONG' but MSM clearly is wrong a lot and people aren't nearly as skeptical, if at all.
 
And that's a straw man as well. My point wasn't that Alex Jones and MSM are equal, I'm saying the MSM should be filtered with the same skepticism as an Infowars articles. It's pretty obvious Jones takes things way overboard. But it's also obvious the MSM screws up a lot, especially on 'breaking news' or even just 'first reports.' And subsequent reports even.

Point being, as I (roughly) said in another thread, it's up to the person reading the article or watching the news story to verify as best as possible what's true, or just ignore it altogether if you're not going to verify the truth of a piece of information. It seems some people take Alex Jones and instantly say 'yeah it's AJ therefore WRONG' but MSM clearly is wrong a lot and people aren't nearly as skeptical, if at all.

See that just looks like you think they are equally bad. I think AJ is demonstrably much worse.
 
Why do they make so many mistakes? Why do they get so many details wrong? Either they just suck at what they do or are massaging stories. Either way, their mistakes don't count and they get a pass. If PP gets it wrong, it's pounced upon as proof of nefarious intent.

You can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways and there is certainly a double standard.

Meanwhile, that double standard is used to discredit one source completely. On the strength of a puff piece about this Lennix guy, now PJW is a total dunce and PP/IW is nothing better than tabloid journalism.

I think it's pretty obvious: initial reports conflict. Someone tells them "I saw two men with guns!" Turns out one is an undercover cop, or didn't have a gun. Networks want to scoop each other. They later update the story, so I don't get the problem there. Does Alex Jones ever say oh sorry we were wrong about something? No, they keep harping on the intial report saying one thing, and the later report something else.
 
You call that journalism? hahaha. 'Round here we call that an opinion. Hmmmm, think there might be a reason that people like Paul Joseph Watson who don't produce much of anything original while simply riding on the coattails of others would be against strict enforcement of copyrights?

Sorry, but he lays out factual statements to back up his thesis that msm is fighting back against the alt press and provides many sources to illustrate, of which TPP was only the first one he listed.

Btw, your stance that TPP was wholly open process is at odds with many other sources, including wikileaks, EFF, and IP-Watch.
 
I think it's pretty obvious: initial reports conflict. Someone tells them "I saw two men with guns!" Turns out one is an undercover cop, or didn't have a gun. Networks want to scoop each other. They later update the story, so I don't get the problem there. Does Alex Jones ever say oh sorry we were wrong about something? No, they keep harping on the intial report saying one thing, and the later report something else.

It's no problem if they put out incorrect stuff because, hey, they gotta put something out? Ok. As for apologizing, I don't see anyone apologizing, AJ or anyone else.
 
See that just looks like you think they are equally bad. I think AJ is demonstrably much worse.
See, and that's the straw man again. I specifically said they are not equally as bad. In fact, just how bad they are in comparison to each other is on a different planet from what I'm talking about, and you're focusing on that as though that was my point.
I'm just saying, they're both bad in general in terms of presenting hard facts that are verifiable, so take each one with caution. A person such as yourself, clearly views AJ as being in a worse boat than the MSM when presenting a news piece, which I'm not disagreeing with at all. I'm just saying 'they're both bad, view each with caution.'
 
It's no problem if they put out incorrect stuff because, hey, they gotta put something out? Ok. As for apologizing, I don't see anyone apologizing, AJ or anyone else.

I did not say the networks APOLOGIZE, I said they update the information. I also did not say it is OK that they "put out incorrect stuff". Saying "initial reports say there were 2 gunmen" and then updating the report that there was actually 1 is correcting what they know. But hey, here's just yet another example of someone who, not matter what FACTS they are told, will continue to claim they're right.
 
It's no problem if they put out incorrect stuff because, hey, they gotta put something out? Ok. As for apologizing, I don't see anyone apologizing, AJ or anyone else.

Not an "apology" per se- just the correction of any errors- of course, they are open to being corrected. If you spot any errors feel free to point them out:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/corrections/


The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397). Comments on editorials may be e-mailed to letters@nytimes.com or faxed to (212) 556-3622.

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper’s journalistic integrity may reach the public editor at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652.
Content from External Source
 
Sorry, but this an inaccurate assessment. To be clear, I virtually never listen to AJ. But I do stop by PP and they most certainly do journalism. Here is a piece from today that is informative and timely and substantiated. It is not just a rant.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-media-wars-the-empire-strikes-back.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 19, 2013

The dinosaur media is in terminal decline but it will not go down without a fight, which is why the establishment is relying on a number of different techniques to remain relevant while strangling its competition.

Recent polls show that trust in mainstream media is hovering at record lows. Print journalism is fast becoming a distant memory as the establishment press rapidly loses its audience to independent media outlets on the Internet.

Far from accepting its fate meekly, the system has rolled out the big guns in a desperate bid to either eliminate or assimilate the burgeoning alternative press.

The latest example is buried within the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) and concerns “intellectual property enforcement.” Put simply, the agreement will mandate ISPs to remove online content without the need for a burden of proof or any kind of legal process, greasing the skids for aggressive and disproportionate censorship-driven takedowns.

“If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” reads a Wikileaks statement. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”
Content from External Source



Sorry, but he lays out factual statements to back up his thesis that msm is fighting back against the alt press and provides many sources to illustrate, of which TPP was only the first one he listed.

Btw, your stance that TPP was wholly open process is at odds with many other sources, including wikileaks, EFF, and IP-Watch.



That article would be defined as an OP-ED piece.


Why do they make so many mistakes? Why do they get so many details wrong? Either they just suck at what they do or are massaging stories. Either way, their mistakes don't count and they get a pass. If PP gets it wrong, it's pounced upon as proof of nefarious intent.
Nobody is perfect. But when the MSM screws up, it is often corrected when new information becomes available. When big stories happen, all the MSM outlets are in fierce competition to get the new information out, interview witnesses, talk to experts for ratings which of course equals revenue. Unfortunately, things that matter to big news stories like official police reports, statements, and investigations take time and people just don't want to wait so the very first reports are usually from eyewitnesses. It is well known to law enforcement and others that eyewitness accounts are unreliable and often contradict each other. When one witness says the perpetrator was wearing a green shirt, it gets reported. When another witness says he saw a blue shirt, that gets reported. And some people who probably never saw anything just make crap up just to get on T.V.. When the flow of information dries up, the speculation begins which in turn becomes accepted as fact far too often. Of course after a few weeks or so, when law enforcement and investigators have had time to look at the real evidence, the true story will finally emerge. It's horrible journalism and I'm sure many who work for MSM would agree with that, but for them it's about competition, and if they can manage to stop people from changing the channel to another station, they're going to keep doing it. It's really more in response to the demand of the public.
It's also just human nature. There was a shooting and a police standoff in my area awhile back. It never made national headlines, but even the local news stations along with people on Facebook were doing the same crap. I heard all of the things from multiple shooters, to massive manhunts, domestic violence, and none of it turned out to be true.
But eventually, the MSM does come to correct themselves which is far too rare in the alternative media.


You can't have it both ways, but you want it both ways and there is certainly a double standard.

Meanwhile, that double standard is used to discredit one source completely. On the strength of a puff piece about this Lennix guy, now PJW is a total dunce and PP/IW is nothing better than tabloid journalism.

One thing to point out though is that Alternative Media sources are not charged with the task of actual live coverage of events when they occur. They have the luxury of sitting at their computers ready to criticize at any moment when they find a discrepancy. They aren't the ones talking to law enforcement or interviewing witnesses and getting details in the aftermath of an event. If this was part of their job, they would produce the same results as anyone else.

Alternative media is mainly about perspective and spin and not really about news. Very few internet based sites are actually engaged in fair reporting.
 
This thread just goes to show how some people will cling to a belief no matter how much proof they are shown that they're wrong.
I havent seen any proof on either side of the argument Janet ?
 
You can only prove a positive Joe. Surely you can't believe any claim made might be true if it can't be proved either way.
correct it cant be proven period . That doesnt make it debunked only makes one of them a liar. Call it a unsolved mystery . Its amazing to me how many here try to defend our Dear Leader . any post involving POTUS will always be political . how many here are having buyers remorse I wonder ? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top