https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/26/ian-bremmer-fake-trump-quote/
Time reporter admits he made up Trump quote.
Time reporter admits he made up Trump quote.
This is why MAGA calls the MSM fake news
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
Falls under, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
What a hack.
Long, long history of Fake News at Time. Glad to see it exposed for the world to see.
One of the reasons journalism died years ago. Tweets are the sources for many lazy "journalists" who sit in their offices and compose but never go investigate. It's why the Covington Kid is going to be a wealthy person. Unfortunate that too many stories appearing in the press and disseminated far and wide originate in the minds of highly partisan people masquerading as journalists or "expert contributors". They're called faux news and have been on display in abundance since 2016.
The Trump Effect helps expose it.
history will show
right after scotus appointments
fake news to be trumps biggest contribution
these journos harping on trump making them the enemy all the while they stab him in the back was great theatre
I have no love lost for Trump, and it is sad that a statement like that is not completely outlandish that Trump would say something along those lines. However, and this a big however, a journalist making that up and attributing it to Trump is disgusting. MSM does everything they can to make Trump a sympathetic character with all of their garbage behavior. If they want to”beat” Trump, let him hang himself if he is going to. Since the Libertarian party has seemingly stopped giving a damn for this cycle (they blew their wad last election) and the Democrats are not willing to give the two relatively reasonable candidates the time of day I may actually vote for him.....
Libertarians weren't offering anything last cycle either.
If the media played it straight up, Trump would shoot himself in the foot.
But they're so biased and over the top nuts, no one listens to what they say.
As long as Trump doesn't go nuts and keeps appointing conservative judges then he'll get my vote again. Of course, if the Dems select a leftist loon, then he'll get my vote regardless.
The Libertarian Party actually took the last election seriously. F-ing Johnson, who I hoped would get the nod, absolutely blew it. There was a legitimate effort to get his name and accomplishments out there. When the camera was in his face and he had a chance to prove himself, he choked, but the party did most everything right.
All candidates are weird. Every political party could do better than they have offered up. Those two statements do not move me. He was the only LP candidate that actually had political accomplishments to show off.
Therein lies the problem with the party.
Reagan felt libertarian ideals could find a home in the GOP. Reform the Repubs GOP is the best ground game for libertarianism.
My first responsibility is to keep the dem candidate out of office. Thus far, no libertarian has shown me they have a snowballs chance of winning. Libertarians need to start at the bottom and build their brand from the ground up rather than starting at the top. That means win sufficient local and state elections to become a viable alternative to the two national parties. It's the same problem the Green Party has.
The last election cycle was the best job the LP had done. They got a few state level seats and more than a handful of county seats. I am hoping this keeps building.
The OP is why I take every media story that is only sourced through 'unnamed or anonymous' sources with a high degree of skepticism. In the old days, before I believed that the media had its own agenda, I listened to these stories as simply the news reporting what its hearing and protecting its sources. Now I know that's not the case, and that 'anonymous' is too often synonymous to 'made-up'.
My position is Ian Bremmer's columns in Time shouldn't be considered "news" let alone his tweets.
Is there some guidebook out there that indicates which of the media members I'm supposed to respect vs. the ones I should be skeptical of? I used to base it off of associated press (for example, Time should be more respected than Infowars) but as the example above shows, that's clearly not a valid mechanism anymore.
Regardless, its another example of the media directly shooting their own credibility as a whole. If Trump truly is this terrible despot/tyrant as has been suggested (CNN had an article on King Trump just last week), then he'll get away with it because the ones we've entrusted to the role of 'watcher' are even less believable than Mr. Trump himself.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to explain to a college grad the difference between hard news and an opinion column. Ian Bremmer is probably shocked to find out he is considered the "media." I doubt he even has his Time column on the first page of his CV.
Do you have time to go through cnn’s daily lineup and tell us who is News and who is opinion? Please, I really want to be on the right side of all this context.
Or just list where do we get hard news at all? That way we are all on the same court.
Also, Which class in college makes one more distinguishable than the other as opposed to a plumber or welder? How can we help those people understand the secrets you unlocked in college?
Actually thats the problem. There is no difference today between an opinionist and a reporter.
I feel like almost everyone here can tell the difference.
You don't know where to do get hard news? Were you getting your hard news from Ian Bremmer up to this point?
No, but anyone who has the mentally capacity to graduate from a 4 year university has the mental capacity to distinguish facts from opinions and commentary.
That covers roughly, what 20-30% of the country.
Maybe your list will serve the greater good of informing the non 4 year graduate in discerning what's fact and what's opinion.
I'm sure most of that 70% can handle it too. But for sure if you graduated from OSU, the difference between fact and opinion and commentary should be a breeze.
Your assertion seems more like an opinion about whether most folks can discern facts from opinions.
This is nuts. As more degrees are earned I believe the ability to distinguish goes down.
These are major generalizations, but having money and background and book smarts doesn’t prepare you to be less manipulated in my opinion. A lot of times it gives someone a false sense of iq and they assume their opinions are fact. Look at Paul krugman.
