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.
Possibly fake. If you say it's automatically fake because 1.) it's an anonymous source, and 2.) it criticizes the Orange One, then you're lying as much as the MSM.
Possibly fake. If you say it's automatically fake because 1.) it's an anonymous source, and 2.) it criticizes the Orange One, then you're lying as much as the MSM.
Well, considering the number of false claims out there, I would say it is safe to first reject ALL claims that refuse to validate their stories properly.
Well, considering the number of false claims out there, I would say it is safe to first reject ALL claims that refuse to validate their stories properly.
Sorry, fake news.
And a large number of those false claims come from Trump himself.
03-18-2017, 10:20 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Wait... did you just tell someone to validate their objection to an allegation which was supported by a source of anonymity?
Um... that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
This might be the dumbest thing I've read today.
The poster said it's fake because the source is anonymous. That doesn't follow. At all.
Not necessarily. It's always better to verify information received from an anonymous source, but the fact that a person requests that their identity be withheld does not necessarily mean the information is not true. Likely as not, it means the reporter is dealing with someone who would like to keep his or her job.
Possibly fake. If you say it's automatically fake because 1.) it's an anonymous source, and 2.) it criticizes the Orange One, then you're lying as much as the MSM.
Wrong.
News is based on facts that can be verified.
Fake news is based on anonymous sources that cannot be verified.
Do you enjoy being told things that you can't verify?
I guess you do, if they fit your preconceived partisan "narrative."
If that is the case, then neither you nor what you call "news" is to be taken seriously.
Not necessarily. It's always better to verify information received from an anonymous source, but the fact that a person requests that their identity be withheld does not necessarily mean the information is not true. Likely as not, it means the reporter is dealing with someone who would like to keep his or her job.
If you can't verify something, then there is no reason to believe it is true.
That holds for science, and it holds for "news" as well.
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.
