Breitbart n' shit

[John Newman]

On December 7, 2016 2:01:32 PM EST, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
>
>On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote:
>>> The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using
>their
>>> data to create #FakeNews.
>> 
>>>
>https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change
>> 
>>> ROTF!
>
>>Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news.
>We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main
>American sources of fake newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and
>many others, called the "MSM". 
> We saw in the recent election seasonthat these organizations were
>tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary
>Clinton.This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became
>heavy, a couple of months before theelection, especially.  Sure,
>there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that
>camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been
>"fake":  By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize
>them.


There's no question the DNC fucked itself with its dirty shenanigans to fuck Sanders for Clinton, a fucking god awful candidate. 

That said, some of the fake news conspiratard shit has ended up causing a lunatic with a gun to go "investigating" ....  (Pizzagate HEH).  Nobody looks good in this election. Then again, I can't think of a counter example ;).  (Obama as first black president was mildly inspiring if you paid zero attention to the details eg his global assassination program, etc etc)

John

>That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news"
>phenomenon.  In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets
>covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course.
> Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if
>it came solely from a givensource, or 'side'.  But in 2016 the public
>observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those
>issues that happened to be negative to Hillary.  I'm not saying that
>they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that
>their coverage was completely stilted.
>As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be
> apparently-quite-legitimate stories onone 'side', and not another.
> This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell
>themwhich thing to believe, and which not to.  
>           Jim Bell
>
>
>   

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.