Fake News
- Thread starter FluffyMcDeath
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
CNN is "Fake News" proven once again. How do these con artists still have White House credentials?
Same as it ever was.
Yeah, fact checking.
I'm sure you've heard of it.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,124
- Reaction score
- 2,185
Oh good god Snopes. Really?
1) Did you actually watch the video?
2) Do your eyes lie to you?
3) Snopes? Really?!?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Fact-checking website co-founder accused of embezzling money for prostitutes
George Soros funded, so the money went to a better use than normal
George Soros funded, so the money went to a better use than normal
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
Yes but I'm not sure you did.
If you did, perhaps you should watch it again.
Yes, frequently, and if you think yours never do, it might explain some things.
Optical illusions are extremely common.
Did you read the explanation?
If so, perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with it.
And no, "Snopes are libertards" is not a valid rebuttal.
Alternatively you can continue posting fake news to the fake news thread, ignorant to the hilarious inherrant irony of such buffoonery.
-EDIT-
I should point out that I share some of your disdain for CNN and am well aware that they have been caught peddling all sorts of nonsense over the years but you do your position a disservice by promoting such over-reaching, fake rubbish like this. It's counterproductive and undermines your more valid complaint that CNN are often full of shit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
You do know that the site you link to to point out Snopes' "liberal bias" says this about itself?
Of course you do.
And no doubt the irony of this is lost on you as well.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
I guess you missed the part where they revealed that the information obtained is from court documents NOT unverifiable anonymous sources
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
and because snopes claim they're "unbiased fact checkers" you automatically believe them?
where as a news source that admits its biased, but provides verifiable information is not to be believed ?
got it
give me a list of some "unbiased" news sources?
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
No.
In this instance the explanation they provided is plausible and doesn't defy logic the way the version from Infowars does.
If you can show me how Infowars' version of events makes more sense than snopes' version, I'll happily reconsider.
There is no such thing.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,124
- Reaction score
- 2,185
CNN is not a legitimate news outlet.
CNN Reporter April Ryan asks White House if slavery was 'wrong'
"Does this administration think that slavery is wrong?" Ryan asked as Sanders left the podium.
Sanders did not respond to that or other questions called out to her from reporters in the room as she was leaving.
Presser over, walking out of the room, CNN "reporter" blurts this nonsense out and then grandstands like she did something noble.
This is CNN.
CNN Reporter April Ryan asks White House if slavery was 'wrong'
"Does this administration think that slavery is wrong?" Ryan asked as Sanders left the podium.
Sanders did not respond to that or other questions called out to her from reporters in the room as she was leaving.
Presser over, walking out of the room, CNN "reporter" blurts this nonsense out and then grandstands like she did something noble.
This is CNN.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,124
- Reaction score
- 2,185
Very Fake News: All Of The Liberal Media
As you will see below, the video in this CNN tweet is a banana, is presented in a way to make Trump look foolish by deceiving news consumers:
At right around the 42 second mark, the camera zooms close on Trump. At the 49 second mark you see President Rube simply flip over his box of fish food and dump it out.
And then, just as Very Fake News CNN intended and the other left-wing outlets that intentionally misreported it intended, the world laughed…
But as you can see at the 58 second mark in the unaltered apple video of the photo-op below, President Trump was merely following his host’s lead, and only emptied his box of fish food into the pond after the prime minister did:
I'm sure Snopes will swoop in to confirm Trump dumped his box of fish food, making Robert happy.
As you will see below, the video in this CNN tweet is a banana, is presented in a way to make Trump look foolish by deceiving news consumers:
At right around the 42 second mark, the camera zooms close on Trump. At the 49 second mark you see President Rube simply flip over his box of fish food and dump it out.
And then, just as Very Fake News CNN intended and the other left-wing outlets that intentionally misreported it intended, the world laughed…
But as you can see at the 58 second mark in the unaltered apple video of the photo-op below, President Trump was merely following his host’s lead, and only emptied his box of fish food into the pond after the prime minister did:
I'm sure Snopes will swoop in to confirm Trump dumped his box of fish food, making Robert happy.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,124
- Reaction score
- 2,185
Remember on Antifa Day last week when Rand Paul was blindside attacked by a Democrat neighbor? Remember how the media dismissed it as not politically motivated and supposedly Rand and his neighbor has an ongoing dispute over landscaping? Remember how that was the trending headline everywhere? Well guess what? Yup, Fake News once again.
Rand Paul's neighbors rip media 'landscaping dispute' reports
Renshaw also dismissed the speculation that the fight was over landscaping. “Their lawn is always mowed. It’s such a lame excuse. That could have killed Rand if a rib had punctured a lung or worse yet the heart. Just no excuse for this type of behavior from adults. Especially educated adults.”
Paul on Wednesday tweeted that his condition included six broken ribs and excess fluid around his lungs.
Neighbor Alicia Stivers express shock at the violence of the attack. “I have never heard Sen. Paul speak an unkind word about anyone, let alone become physically violent. Which makes it all the more shocking that a next-door neighbor of many years who has not so much as exchanged an email or spoken word with Rand in several years, would race downhill and pummel Rand from behind,” said Stivers.
She has served four years on the neighborhood association and said that there were no reports of problems between Paul or Boucher. “I am wondering how the media can describe what took place as an altercation. Is it an altercation when no words are exchanged and one person is attacked from behind with no warning? I must check my dictionary,” she added.
Rand Paul's neighbors rip media 'landscaping dispute' reports
Renshaw also dismissed the speculation that the fight was over landscaping. “Their lawn is always mowed. It’s such a lame excuse. That could have killed Rand if a rib had punctured a lung or worse yet the heart. Just no excuse for this type of behavior from adults. Especially educated adults.”
Paul on Wednesday tweeted that his condition included six broken ribs and excess fluid around his lungs.
Neighbor Alicia Stivers express shock at the violence of the attack. “I have never heard Sen. Paul speak an unkind word about anyone, let alone become physically violent. Which makes it all the more shocking that a next-door neighbor of many years who has not so much as exchanged an email or spoken word with Rand in several years, would race downhill and pummel Rand from behind,” said Stivers.
She has served four years on the neighborhood association and said that there were no reports of problems between Paul or Boucher. “I am wondering how the media can describe what took place as an altercation. Is it an altercation when no words are exchanged and one person is attacked from behind with no warning? I must check my dictionary,” she added.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
Personal jibes aside, Snopes took your side on this one.
I'm not sure why they would do such a crazy thing but maybe, just maybe it's because the facts check out, just like most material on Snopes:
OTOH, I'm sure you'll be able to convince yourself that they're only telling the truth this time so that their pinko, libertard lies have more credibility in future.
Outside of personal jibes, I'm not sure I'd bother to go out of my way to defend Snopes. I mean, a couple decades ago, they were kinda useful for pointing people at when they'd forward you stupid email myths for the 1,800th time. But they've always been quick to confirm things they wanted, and they never really dug very deep on anything. I wasn't an active member there very long.
And, honestly, let's face it. The open-minded, fairly reasonable, and somewhat likable one was always Barbara. Without her, Snopes isn't really Snopes.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
What a strange way to look at it.
I'm hardly going out of my way to defend Snopes by pointing out that most of their facts check out.
I will, however, defend any links I've posted from Snopes.
Assertions on here that Snopes is a lying, liberal mouthpiece are usually in response to articles on Snopes which demonstrate some claim which appears to be obvious bullshit is, in fact, actual bullshit.
Pretty much what you said it used to be useful for.
Guess what? It often still is.
As demonstrated yet again here:
Claim: Snopes will say Trump mis-fed fish
Reality: Snopes said Trump did no such thing.
This happens on this site to an absurdly silly degree and not once has any link I've posted from Snopes been shown to be false, yet the claims and derision continue.
Like showing that the claims of Trump mis-feeding the fish were bogus?
Is that the kind of thing they want, to show Trump in the best light possible?
Snopes may indeed be as much of a lying, liberal mouthpiece as Breitbart is a lying, right-wing mouthpiece but, if it is, it has yet to be demonstrated in any Snopes articles I've posted on here.
Ah, right - someone you 'somewhat' liked left and now you no longer like the site?
That's fair enough but I hope you can also appreciate that it says the square route of zero about how reliable Snopes is as a fact checker.
So, if you think anything I've posted from Snopes is either incorrect or misleading, please let me know and I'll happily correct or retract.
OTOH, if you just want to jump on the baseless, mud-slinging band-wagon, you're in esteemed company.
Simple facts, you're probably right. There is still some inertia there to get the obvious things correct.
Well, ones that largely involve things that don't include politics, I'd probably largely agree with that statement. At least to maybe 85% or so. Which is "good enough" for a lot.
Now, I never said any were. I just said I wouldn't waste my time defending the site.
Now, speaking of strange ways to look at things, this one right here really has me scratching my head. I'm assuming you haven't been a member of Snopes? Because what you said would be a lot like saying "I no longer like Amiga.org because Wayne left." First off, it's blatently wrong. And second off, it's quite obvious that Barbara had a huge hand in running the show, and her departure does, in fact, greatly change the character and content of the site. Officially, she was only co-founder and half-owner. But, in reality, she ran the show up until the divorce. Even they agree on that fact.