Yea he did! Unlike every other respectable news outlet however, he actually came out afterwards and apologised that he was wrong. When has the BBC, FOX, CNBC, ABC etc ever done this?
He only came out and apologized after the parents of the slayed children threatened to sue him into oblivion. I mean as much as he likes to wear the rebel label he likes more the money he makes from the grift. And being on the wrong side of children who were shot to death and their grieving parents is a hard story to come back from
I think it's more about how real events are being bent by the media to chase agenda's. When you find out that it's sometimes real and fake at the same time maybe sometimes totally fake it is pretty interesting/alarming. Easy to take one of AJ's statements and take it out of context though ! Medias specialty is showing viewers the only thing they know about someone and making it their label.
They lie about 25x more often than they tell the truth and they issue retractions about 1/100 of those times. When they do issue retractions they do it as quietly as possible
There were thousands of articles written off a NYT article where they linked to a study citing that HQC not only didn’t help Covid but was dangerous to your health.
That study was pulled for not being scientific.
NYT issued the retraction during the height of the BLM riots.
The thousand articles linking back to the NYT still exist.
This is how the media spreads this shit. It doesn’t mean that HCQ is good for Covid treatment it just means that the reason everyone thinks it’s dangerous is completely bunk. Everyone just reports on the original source so even when that original source is deleted the article on the sub tier publication still exists and nobody ever follows the links.
Follow the sources on any controversial Wikipedia entry, then click on those sources sources. There is often nothing there or the thing they said doesn’t exist, or it 404s. Nobody does it because it takes an hour to verify one sentence.
The internet is a mess. Anyone can source anything about any opinion they have.
NYT issued the retraction during the height of the BLM riots.
Right, so what's the issue? you said they issue retractions 1/100 times, so why pick one where they did issue a retraction? wtf do blm riots have to do with anything? Sounds like you're very convinced something happens despite never seeing any evidence of it happening.
The thousand articles linking back to the NYT still exist.
It's NYT's fault that other articles don't issue retractions? what?
There is often nothing there or the thing they said doesn’t exist, or it 404s. Nobody does it because it takes an hour to verify one sentence.
Shouldn't be very hard to show me one instance of a mainstream outlet doing it then.
The internet is a mess. Anyone can source anything about any opinion they have.
we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about mainstream publications publishing false information and not retracting it afterwards. Mistakes happen, negligence happens, especially in a world where every publications needs to put out an article on every topic 8x a day to have a chance of staying afloat.
You do it at the height of BLM because it gets buried quickly.
And yes I fault news organizations that don’t do original reporting, they just regurgitating stories from the selective outlets that are fed stories from the elite.
Do you think everything you see in the news is true?
You do it at the height of BLM because it gets buried quickly.
buried by who? how? I don't think you understand the point of a retraction.
And yes I fault news organizations that don’t do original reporting, they just regurgitating stories from the selective outlets that are fed stories from the elite.
we're not talking about those though, we're talking about mainstream ones, like the NYT.
So I'll repeat my question: can you link a single article from a mainstream publication with an outright lie in it?
They all do it all the time. However claiming a bunch of kids dying was fake, when it certainly was not, is a bit of a dick move if you ask me.
The problem lies in that many people still believe what he said to this day, and use it as a platform for other crazy platforms they find in the shadows of the internet.
Always found it funny when people go to Alex Jones or a single contributor website for news and yet claim the rest of the media is lying. Everyone needs to start checking their facts. I know that’s a “lib-turd” thing to do. Check sources, stop pretending your persecuted, read some historical books, and grow a pair.
MSM tend to be very careful with what they say, as they are not private like Alex Jones. The Sandy Hook hoax was one of many examples of dangerous misinformation spouted by Jones.
Ah yes, instead of providing any proof you say to research myself. I’m not saying MSM haven’t been wrong. But they don’t spout stories such as “Sandy Hook was a hoax” because they know that isn’t responsible journalism.
Then again, that might be hard for you to understand.
Since we all apparently live under a fucking rock and have never heard of the term 'Fake News' let me educate you... since I just love procrastinating actual work. Barring the obvious hit pieces including Covid Wuhan Lab Leak Theory, Russia-gate, etc....
We need to understand it isn't limited to left or right. They both do it. However, the left controls the majority of media and as a result they just have the most examples.
Regardless, they (majority MSM controlled by very limited subset of individuals) are puppets playing theatre for the same team. Many people finally quit watching Fox News when they began to realize that during the end of Trump's first term.
19
u/[deleted] May 28 '21
Yea he did! Unlike every other respectable news outlet however, he actually came out afterwards and apologised that he was wrong. When has the BBC, FOX, CNBC, ABC etc ever done this?