protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,853
- 18,751
- 2,250
Sometimes fake news is clear and direct Some other times it is indirect and less clear. Nevertheless, it is just as fake, if not worse, because of it's deceptiveness, and capability of hoodwinking TV viewers.
One example of this is Martha Raddatz, hosting one of the Sunday morning "news" shows. Interviewing Trump associate, Kelly Anne Conway, lots of puzzled expressions appeared on Kelly Anne's face, and often she had to re-ask the questions, taking them out of the their loaded and biased form.''
Here's a few examples:
1) Referring to sex molestation accusations against Repubican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Martha asked >> "Do you have any doubt about the veracity of the accusations." See the bias ? This sentence used the words "the veracity" (as if it had been established that the accusations had veracity, which is not the case).
Martha asked this question twice, both times putting the accusations into a mode of truth, that they have no right to be, (since no evidence has been produced to support them (A more proper question might have asked >> "Do you have any thoughts about the accusations ?"
2) Martha also stated >> "You either believe the women, or you don't." Sorry, this doesn't qualify as proper either. The statement is simply FALSE. Since there is no evidence, to show Moore as having committed these nefarious acts, we should not be making a judgement at all (as Martha suggests). One can only believe or disbelieve in the presence of some evidence.
3) Martha also states >> "Maybe these 4 women are lying." Well golly gee, Martha, who could ever have imagined that ? (sarcasm).....when the women refer to an alleged incident 39 years old, and one month before an election.
4) Martha then tells Kelly Anne >> "You can't say whether you believe the women or not." Well, first, she shouldn't HAVE a belief, when there's no evidence, and second, why on earth would she believe it ? It's about as UNbelievable as anything could be, and has all the earmarks of a political hit job, designed to derail someone's candidacy in an election.
5) Martha adds >> "So that means it goes nowhere" LOL. You can't help but get the feeling Martha is disappointed that Moore hasn't been derailed already, from running for the Senate. And this is ABC TV's conception of "news" ? Yes, Martha, without evidence, it would go nowhere, just as thousands of accusations do, that never go to an arrest, or trial, or anything, nor should they.
6) Here's the one that really raised my eyebrows (and I'm pretty used hearing liberal lunacy/stupidity). Martha, again (in her mind) having already convicted Moore, said >> "Steve Bannon endorses Roy Moore. Does that tarnish Steve Bannon ?" Pheeew! (high-pitched whistle) No Martha. But that question sure does tarnish YOU (and ABC TV).
Quite amazing the trash we're seeing on supposedly reputable TV stations.
One example of this is Martha Raddatz, hosting one of the Sunday morning "news" shows. Interviewing Trump associate, Kelly Anne Conway, lots of puzzled expressions appeared on Kelly Anne's face, and often she had to re-ask the questions, taking them out of the their loaded and biased form.''
Here's a few examples:
1) Referring to sex molestation accusations against Repubican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Martha asked >> "Do you have any doubt about the veracity of the accusations." See the bias ? This sentence used the words "the veracity" (as if it had been established that the accusations had veracity, which is not the case).
Martha asked this question twice, both times putting the accusations into a mode of truth, that they have no right to be, (since no evidence has been produced to support them (A more proper question might have asked >> "Do you have any thoughts about the accusations ?"
2) Martha also stated >> "You either believe the women, or you don't." Sorry, this doesn't qualify as proper either. The statement is simply FALSE. Since there is no evidence, to show Moore as having committed these nefarious acts, we should not be making a judgement at all (as Martha suggests). One can only believe or disbelieve in the presence of some evidence.
3) Martha also states >> "Maybe these 4 women are lying." Well golly gee, Martha, who could ever have imagined that ? (sarcasm).....when the women refer to an alleged incident 39 years old, and one month before an election.
4) Martha then tells Kelly Anne >> "You can't say whether you believe the women or not." Well, first, she shouldn't HAVE a belief, when there's no evidence, and second, why on earth would she believe it ? It's about as UNbelievable as anything could be, and has all the earmarks of a political hit job, designed to derail someone's candidacy in an election.
5) Martha adds >> "So that means it goes nowhere" LOL. You can't help but get the feeling Martha is disappointed that Moore hasn't been derailed already, from running for the Senate. And this is ABC TV's conception of "news" ? Yes, Martha, without evidence, it would go nowhere, just as thousands of accusations do, that never go to an arrest, or trial, or anything, nor should they.
6) Here's the one that really raised my eyebrows (and I'm pretty used hearing liberal lunacy/stupidity). Martha, again (in her mind) having already convicted Moore, said >> "Steve Bannon endorses Roy Moore. Does that tarnish Steve Bannon ?" Pheeew! (high-pitched whistle) No Martha. But that question sure does tarnish YOU (and ABC TV).
Quite amazing the trash we're seeing on supposedly reputable TV stations.