Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you that dense? Do I need to spell it out? WAPO's glen Kessler was the one who said they'd stop fact checking Biden after his first 100 days because he didn't need to be fact checked. And they even admitted they didn't want to fact check him for the first 100. Since then they've changed their stance, and they've actually been open about how much of failure Biden has been. You're a grown up; research it yourself then. Why is my source garbage? Because you don't like the answer? Again, Glen Kessler from the WAPO was the one who said it.
Are you that dense? Do I need to spell it out? WAPO's glen Kessler was the one who said they'd stop fact checking Biden after his first 100 days because he didn't need to be fact checked. And they even admitted they didn't want to fact check him for the first 100. Since then they've changed their stance, and they've actually been open about how much of failure Biden has been. You're a grown up; research it yourself then. Why is my source garbage? Because you don't like the answer? Again, Glen Kessler from the WAPO was the one who said it.
"ending its presidential fact-check database"
"database — which we do not plan to extend beyond 100 days"
"the Post says it has “no plans” to keep a Biden database of falsehoods “at this time.”
You're the one who's dense.
You're the one playing games.
They are not keeping a running total and a database, like they did for Trump, which was necessary because Trump told thousands upon thousands of lies--but they are NOT going to stop fact-checking Biden.
Responsible media outlets report what’s said by politicians and the like as news, talk about what’s said as opinion, and run or broadcast corrections of fact when necessary. For the most part, mainstream media does that. (Always exceptions, but mostly true.)
But fact checking in its current form started under Trump and his barrage of misrepresentations, exaggerations and lies, which started at the onset of administration. Remember the lies about the number of people at his inauguration? Or Kellyanne Conway’s theory of “alternative facts”? The sheer volume of straight out lies was unmatched before or since. and no, everybody does NOT lie to such an extent. Thus, a fact checking “industry” that was built and apparently is here to stay.
I get it, you're a partisan hack.
But if you are going to lie, at least make it about your IQ or something else that nobody cares about.
Are you that dense? Do I need to spell it out? WAPO's glen Kessler was the one who said they'd stop fact checking Biden after his first 100 days because he didn't need to be fact checked. And they even admitted they didn't want to fact check him for the first 100. Since then they've changed their stance, and they've actually been open about how much of failure Biden has been. You're a grown up; research it yourself then. Why is my source garbage? Because you don't like the answer? Again, Glen Kessler from the WAPO was the one who said it.
"ending its presidential fact-check database"
"database — which we do not plan to extend beyond 100 days"
"the Post says it has “no plans” to keep a Biden database of falsehoods “at this time.”
You're the one who's dense.
You're the one playing games.
They are not keeping a running total and a database, like they did for Trump, which was necessary because Trump told thousands upon thousands of lies--
Because they don't want us to know how often Biden lies (hint- every day.) Yes, they'll call out his falsehoods but won't maintain a running total.
There’s a new component in the news industry now - “Fact Checking”.
Whenever someone says something that the news industry doesn’t want to promulgate, they “fact check” it.
I thought that was already their job. Isn’t that the entire point of journalism? Find the facts about a thing, organize them and then present them to the public. That’s what journalism is.
I’m glad they’re doing their job (I’ll ignore their motivations and outcomes for the purposes of this thread), but if they only recently started checking facts, what have they been doing until now?
It’s weird. People have been convinced that journalists doing their job is some kind of special thing that shouldn’t need to be done at all.
BTW, this was spurred by a thread in PoC about a correction being issued on a fact check. A correction was made to a fact check. Let that sink in.
Over the past few weeks, I've been watching some older movies and realized how much the media was detested by the heroes of those movies. Media never care about the facts. They in fact loved to manipulate the public to sell stories. Not news, but stories. It's up to us to figure out if they are true or not.
Malcolm X even stated that the media will make you believe an innocent man is guilty while a guilty man is innocent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
