I get that it's fun to dunk on libs but please stop sharing shit from the New York Post and the Daily Mail. They're literally rags.
If you must post it for a dunk then use an archive or screenshot it.
Stop using them for news, no matter how funny it is they're literally just lies.
You guys don't trust NYT because they posted Iraq War cheerleading but then fall for shit like this.
Explicit rags should go.
Lib media sucks but it's not right-wing drivel.
It's kind of embarrassing that we still allow literal fake news sites in the news comm. What kind of liberal free speech bullshit is that? Ban outright right-wing propaganda magazines.
I fell for it. Dunno why chuds have to embellish on stories when the concentration camps still being open at the border is enough to attack Biden on.
chapo did too. NYP got a ton of clicks for it. the side effect of making the left look bad is maybe not intentional
Well, they can point out hypocrisy but they can't go much further than that because that's not what riles the base up.
It's much easier to just say Biden wants open borders and watch chuds froth at the mouth.
I fell for it too. It was just so believable. Granted it still sucks this woman lost her job over it, I'd assume because Kamala had her fired or "forced to resign". I get it, she writes for a garbage outlet, but shouldn't this be on whoever told her to do it?
She resigned of her own choice because it was a garbage outlet that made her print a false story. "Kamala fired her" is stupid as fuck, she would have no pull with the New York Post. We really don't need to make up shit about why the Democrats are horrible, they openly admit to worse shit than this.
If you think that's "stupid as fuck" you obviously have no idea how politics in media works. Kamala doesn't need pull within the New York Post to threaten them with legal action if they don't fire the writer. My point is that it sucks the writer is getting the blame for it when it's not her fault. She even said:
“an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard enough against.” She added, “I’m sad to leave.”
So why don't you dial back the unwarranted hostility a little bit?
Oh only one of the books was given to the concentration camp kids. Honestly makes me feel better shits not THAT hellish. You make good points about being careful with what info we consume.
It's still bad that anyone thought that shit was worth donating to a border camp.
You don't have to embellish.
"The Washington Post largely found that the story was false. " According to the not rag washington post.
There's a difference between WaPo - which mostly reports factual stories but spins them to be in the interest of capital - and the NY Post - which fabricates shit out of thin air. You can get real information out of WaPo/NYT whatever if you read it critically. The NY Post literally just prints lies to stir up outrage from chuds. The author of the "Kamala books at border" story literally quit their job because she knew it was false and her boss knew it was false but made her write it anyway.
NYT and WaPo suck, but there's a difference between them and the Daily Mail or InfoWars.
Yeah, there is a difference. The difference is liberals think one is an appropriate source of information and the other conservatives think is an appropriate source of information. Wapo and nyt are able to maintain a sheen of liberal respectability by truthfully reporting on things that don't matter and uncritically paraphrasing the state department on things that do.
They are useful so far as you get to see what type of brain worms are on the menu today.
The difference is liberals think one is an appropriate source of information and the other conservatives think is an appropriate source of information.
This is some real "both sides" shit.
Maybe I misunderstand your original point. If anyone thinks that WaPo and the NYPost have the same value as far as being able to gather factual information from them, then those people have brainworms.
I have a tendency to be vague and sarcastic. My point is to say don't post right wing media and then post the hill and WaPo as proof is hypocritical at best and the 53rd type of liberalism at worst.
The Kopmala story was funny. Everyone got a good laugh. get off your liberal respectability high horse.
"90% of discourse is making up a guy in your head and getting mad at that guy"
I guess it's more efficient if you let the NYPost do the making-up for you!
The person that wrote the story also said that it was an incorrect story and the NY Post also issued a correction.
THEY FUCKING MADE IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE HOLY SHIT DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY FUCKING CREDIT FOR SAYING OOPSIE WHEN THEY GET EXPOSED
I get that it’s fun to dunk on libs but please stop sharing shit from the New York Post and the Daily Mail. They’re literally rags.
They're absolutely rags, but they will periodically report on shit that Dem-sycophant news sources won't touch. The National Enquirer was, for instance, the first newspaper to air John Edwards's affair.
By all means, Trust But Verify. But it's foolhardy to dismiss a story simply because a right-wing rag is reporting on it.
Might be a good idea to have a "rumors" comm where any source is allowed and then ban rags from news and politics. This way something like the John Edwards story could get some views, but there's at least a chance that people would treat it with skepticism until there's more trustworthy reporting on it.
Given the size of this community and the inevitable "Is this real news?" struggle sessions that would inevitably erupt? Eh.
Maybe if we start seeing more activity and the news-comm really starts blowing up, it would be worth the trouble to whitelist sources. For now, just leave the fact-checking to the comments section.
No. The New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story last fall, and that was very entertaining.
I thought the whole thing was debunked. It was a plant by Russian intelligence to attempt to throw the election. Social media was warned by US intelligence and acted appropriately.
Partially real but fluffed up to be mostly bullshit from what I remember.
Most of the "bombshells" they kept promising never surfaced.
At the end of the day, all we got out of that pre-election stuff was some embarassing pics? And there have been plenty more of those since then, proving thus that the first batch really wasn't anything special in and of itself. whocare.
5 star post. You almost had me going full debatebro. But then I remembered what website I was on. Cheers!
Honestly, the only thing worse than reading conservative news is make believing that liberal news is somehow superior and more appropriate for intellectuals.
How do you make something/use it as an archive? And what exactly does it do?
Use this to archive:
https://archive.org/web/
Go to the section in the bottom right that says "Save Page Now." Archiving lets people view media without contributing to the readership of shitty outlets, and keeps a record of stuff that could be deleted or altered later.
It was a funny story and it not being real doesn't change a thing about what I do with my day to day life. No I will not be self-flagellating for this one
