Fake News Continues To Try To 'Make Hay' When There Is None - Busted Again!

[easyt65]

Go Straight To The Fifth Paragraph Of The Latest NYT ‘Bombshell’ On Russia Collusion

"But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia."



"When The New York Times first reported the FBI was investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it was not until the tenth paragraph readers were informed of an important fact: “American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”



"...the reader learns that those who familiar with the conversations see “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia.”



“Out of all the leaks thus far in the Trump-Russia probe, there have been none showing actual collusion,”





ANOTHER DAY....ANOTHER EPISODE OF SNOWFLAKES FALLING ON THEIR FACE, HORRIBLY FAILING TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR FAKE NEWS / FAKE CLAIMS!



"Bwuhahahahahahahahaha!"

 

[Jackson]

To be a more objective poster, it is up to use to read the given links and look for those important clues.

Once you read that no evidence has been found, evaluate the rest of the article for the biases the article presents. Very telling. Both liberals and conservatives need to investigate thier links.

 

[Norman]

Russia?

Stopped reading there... can't they at least try to come up with something original?

 

[Dragonlady]

To be a more objective poster, it is up to use to read the given links and look for those important clues.

Once you read that no evidence has been found, evaluate the rest of the article for the biases the article presents. Very telling. Both liberals and conservatives need to investigate thier links.

This, in spades.

But here is the thing. Reputable newspapers have strict rules about the use of "unnamed sources" one of which is that the information provided by such sources has to be confirmed by other sources or information before publishing. They don't just run with rumours and innuendo unlike fake news sites like InfoWars.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[nat4900]

Go Straight To The Fifth Paragraph Of The Latest NYT ‘Bombshell’ On Russia Collusion

"But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia."



"When The New York Times first reported the FBI was investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it was not until the tenth paragraph readers were informed of an important fact: “American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”



"...the reader learns that those who familiar with the conversations see “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia.”



“Out of all the leaks thus far in the Trump-Russia probe, there have been none showing actual collusion,”





ANOTHER DAY....ANOTHER EPISODE OF SNOWFLAKES FALLING ON THEIR FACE, HORRIBLY FAILING TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR FAKE NEWS / FAKE CLAIMS!


View attachment 128785
"Bwuhahahahahahahahaha!"

a recent picture of Queasy...
....

 

[S.J.]

Another hit piece that buries the truth in the tenth paragraph, hoping the reader won't notice it.

 

[Jackson]

To be a more objective poster, it is up to use to read the given links and look for those important clues.

Once you read that no evidence has been found, evaluate the rest of the article for the biases the article presents. Very telling. Both liberals and conservatives need to investigate thier links.

This, in spades.

But here is the thing. Reputable newspapers have strict rules about the use of "unnamed sources" one of which is that the information provided by such sources has to be confirmed by other sources or information before publishing. They don't just run with rumours and innuendo unlike fake news sites like InfoWars.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thank you, Dragon Lady! I agree, but there should be a caveate at the end of their "investgative" articles that use "anonymous" sources. Either in the article or below it, they should say that the material from Leaker of this article was confirmed by two other resources.