Count me as four. We do not need a provocateur. If you don't like what is offered here, just go elsewhere. Most of us have enough sense to know what is reliable and what isn't.
New York Post is your source about NYTimes? While we are off the original subject, isnтАЩt Jared KushnerтАЩs $2 billion from Mohammed bin Salman (after the Saudi investment people panned JK) a bigger deal than whatever HunterтАЩs laptop signifies?
Duh. Kushner who has zero experience in managing a $2 billion fund...nothing to bring to an investors table. Isn't that a nice thank you from another murderer? I wonder when the Moscow Trump Tower will be launched?
But some folks are lost in a "belief bubble" (right, Mike?). It's just easier to stay there than face the fact that you might actually have some facts wrong.
Carol, Substack is having a nervous breakdown this morning. First, I didn't get Heather's letter today, so found it online; now my x100 comment showed up under a comment from our PITA.
Actually, it was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's laptop story, while the New York Times publicly stuck its head in the sand.
тАЬStuck its head in the sandтАЭ is loaded language, pejorative. тАЬWaitedтАЭ is one neutral word choice available. Loaded words show your viewpoint and only resound with people inclined to agree with you already.
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as тАЬCop cold-cocks unarmed man тАШacting irateтАЩ at restaurant,тАЭ and тАЬItтАЩs time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.тАЭ The New York Post also republishes news from other sources, such as the least biased Associated Press. More stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly; however, many times, the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
We readers of LFAA are well-informed, smart, and not vulnerable to propaganda, as we can all see straight through the bullshit. YouтАЩre wasting your time (and ours) here; you might have better luck on Facebook or something. I venture that almost all of us just want you to go away. IтАЩd also venture that all of us also support your right to be here and to speak; just donтАЩt be surprised if no one listens or agrees.
Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
It's no big secret that both the New York Times and the Washington Post flip-flopped their propaganda lines on Hunter Biden's laptop. But you are "smart, well-informed and not vulnerable to propaganda."
Unfortunately, propaganda works, but not equally on everyone. So, rather than trust or distrust information reflexively, we might look to see who benefits from the way a piece of information is presented and the choice of what is being presented or what ignored.
Roughly a third of Americans polled think we are losing jobs. Why would they think that, when 11 months of jobs reports have been big gains, not losses? Who benefits if people think the economy is tanking rather than improving?
We also might read something designed to provoke and wait for confirmation from additional reliable sources as the story unfolds.
Amen. Biting my tongue. A lot.
Me too.
Count me as four. We do not need a provocateur. If you don't like what is offered here, just go elsewhere. Most of us have enough sense to know what is reliable and what isn't.
Really?
Is the New York Times reliable? Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"? (Mwah hah hah...)
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-york-times-finally-admit-hunters-laptop-is-real-but-only-to-protect-joe-biden/
New York Post is your source about NYTimes? While we are off the original subject, isnтАЩt Jared KushnerтАЩs $2 billion from Mohammed bin Salman (after the Saudi investment people panned JK) a bigger deal than whatever HunterтАЩs laptop signifies?
I vote ignoring. We're only feeding this guy.
Duh. Kushner who has zero experience in managing a $2 billion fund...nothing to bring to an investors table. Isn't that a nice thank you from another murderer? I wonder when the Moscow Trump Tower will be launched?
But some folks are lost in a "belief bubble" (right, Mike?). It's just easier to stay there than face the fact that you might actually have some facts wrong.
Carol, Substack is having a nervous breakdown this morning. First, I didn't get Heather's letter today, so found it online; now my x100 comment showed up under a comment from our PITA.
Actually, it was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's laptop story, while the New York Times publicly stuck its head in the sand.
тАЬStuck its head in the sandтАЭ is loaded language, pejorative. тАЬWaitedтАЭ is one neutral word choice available. Loaded words show your viewpoint and only resound with people inclined to agree with you already.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
Please take your hostility and condescension elsewhere.
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as тАЬCop cold-cocks unarmed man тАШacting irateтАЩ at restaurant,тАЭ and тАЬItтАЩs time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.тАЭ The New York Post also republishes news from other sources, such as the least biased Associated Press. More stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly; however, many times, the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.
Source: Media Bias Fact Check
The NY Post is just Fox News exemplified. Thought you were biting your tongue, Barbara. Yeah, me neither!
The point, which you are resolutely ignoring, us that the New York TIMES flip-flopped on its propaganda line about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Whose fake news do you believe?
Enough is enough. Starting to suck all the oxygen out of the room. From here on out we should just ignore.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
It was the New York Post that originally broke the Hunter Biden's Laptop story, while the New York Times resolutely stuck its head in the sand.
That rather proves BarbaraтАЩs point.
We readers of LFAA are well-informed, smart, and not vulnerable to propaganda, as we can all see straight through the bullshit. YouтАЩre wasting your time (and ours) here; you might have better luck on Facebook or something. I venture that almost all of us just want you to go away. IтАЩd also venture that all of us also support your right to be here and to speak; just donтАЩt be surprised if no one listens or agrees.
Hmmm...
Was the New York Times reliable when it dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
Is the New York Times now reliable when it admits that Hunter Biden's laptop is real?
It's no big secret that both the New York Times and the Washington Post flip-flopped their propaganda lines on Hunter Biden's laptop. But you are "smart, well-informed and not vulnerable to propaganda."
Yeah, right.
Unfortunately, propaganda works, but not equally on everyone. So, rather than trust or distrust information reflexively, we might look to see who benefits from the way a piece of information is presented and the choice of what is being presented or what ignored.
Roughly a third of Americans polled think we are losing jobs. Why would they think that, when 11 months of jobs reports have been big gains, not losses? Who benefits if people think the economy is tanking rather than improving?
We also might read something designed to provoke and wait for confirmation from additional reliable sources as the story unfolds.
https://www.blatantpropaganda.org/propaganda/articles/journalists-are-intellectual-prostitutes-says-John-Swinton-of-the-New-York-Times.html
And what about "her emails"? OMG, the treachery of it all.
Me three and I am in no mood this morning.
Me neither.