Started By
Message

re: Failing AND Corrupt NYTs called out again...

Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:23 am to
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:23 am to
quote:

the nyt is fake news. And given there is no source saying what the nyt claims was said, the attributed source actually does not exist.
This Pottinger guy gave a rambling and somewhat disjointed answer to the question from the reporter, so the reporter cleaned it up to make it readable. The substance was essentially the same, though I would have used “difficult” rather than “impossible.”

Paraphrasing a source is not “fake news.”
This post was edited on 5/27/18 at 6:30 am
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
23384 posts
Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:28 am to
quote:

Paraphrasing a source is not “fake news.


Drawing ridiculous unsupported conclusions from a statement is definitely fake news.

And remember, when they all lied about the "animals" comment, Maggie Haberman of this very same gossip rag made it very clear it's not their job to provide context.
Posted by bencoleman
RIP 7/19
Member since Feb 2009
37887 posts
Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:34 am to
So it's your position that the NYT doesn't lie and spread divisive bullshite about the President. They've been lying to the American people all along. So it doesn't matter if the story is true or not their credibility is less than zero. The NYT and other news outlets have nobody to blame but themselves. My question to the leftists here is how can you get so bent out of shape over this when you've done nothing but stand and clap every other time the MSM has posted straight lies attacking the man and his family. The truth is I simply don't care what the times reports because they've lost the trust of the people.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124663 posts
Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:41 am to
quote:

The substance was essentially the same
No it wasn't.
It wasn't close.

Paraphrasing implies some accuracy.
To believe the fake report was remotely accurate, one would have to believe that planning which had been ongoing for weeks for a meeting scheduled weeks away would be rendered "impossible" by a few days hiatus. In other words, one would need be an imbecile or a liar or both.
Posted by Turbeauxdog
Member since Aug 2004
23384 posts
Posted on 5/27/18 at 6:43 am to
quote:

would have used “difficult” rather than “impossible


Do you understand the difference between these two words?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram