Do You Trust WorldNetDaily to Tell You the Truth?

[DiveCon]

Certainly, WND is rightwing. Certainly, the HuffPuff is leftwing. I don't think either are 'extreme'. Unless we are using the word 'extreme' now to describe anything we disagree with..... like Joke Dorkey does.

I think people need to separate the "opinions" presented from the "facts" presented. While Huffington Post has a pov, I am still waiting for someone to prove what they "lied" about...

unlike fauxnews and the loony toons at wnd.

And although they are a news source, they can all be guilty of innacuracies but not nearly as blatent, extreme and often as WND, or Faux.

WND is just the same as huffy puffy
and you are fucking INSANE if you dont think so

and inspite of all you morons whining, FNC does not LIE
you do however

 

[California Girl]

and huffy puffy post is extreme and leftwing

Certainly, WND is rightwing. Certainly, the HuffPuff is leftwing. I don't think either are 'extreme'. Unless we are using the word 'extreme' now to describe anything we disagree with..... like Joke Dorkey does.

I think people need to separate the "opinions" presented from the "facts" presented. While Huffington Post has a pov, I am still waiting for someone to prove what they "lied" about...

unlike fauxnews and the loony toons at wnd.

They are a different type of organization to FNC. Comparing apples to organutans might suit a political point scoring exercise but that doesn't make it a legit comparison.

 

[jillian]

Certainly, WND is rightwing. Certainly, the HuffPuff is leftwing. I don't think either are 'extreme'. Unless we are using the word 'extreme' now to describe anything we disagree with..... like Joke Dorkey does.

I think people need to separate the "opinions" presented from the "facts" presented. While Huffington Post has a pov, I am still waiting for someone to prove what they "lied" about...

unlike fauxnews and the loony toons at wnd.

They are a different type of organization to FNC. Comparing apples to organutans might suit a political point scoring exercise but that doesn't make it a legit comparison.

which says what about their truthtelling habits?

answer: nothing...

i could refer you to the lawsuit where fauxnews fought for, and won, the right to force it's reporters to lie.

but that would be redundant.

 

[DiveCon]

I think people need to separate the "opinions" presented from the "facts" presented. While Huffington Post has a pov, I am still waiting for someone to prove what they "lied" about...

unlike fauxnews and the loony toons at wnd.

They are a different type of organization to FNC. Comparing apples to organutans might suit a political point scoring exercise but that doesn't make it a legit comparison.

which says what about their truthtelling habits?

answer: nothing...

i could refer you to the lawsuit where fauxnews fought for, and won, the right to force it's reporters to lie.

but that would be redundant.

uh, why are you not telling the truth about that?
shame on you

 

[California Girl]

I think people need to separate the "opinions" presented from the "facts" presented. While Huffington Post has a pov, I am still waiting for someone to prove what they "lied" about...

unlike fauxnews and the loony toons at wnd.

They are a different type of organization to FNC. Comparing apples to organutans might suit a political point scoring exercise but that doesn't make it a legit comparison.

which says what about their truthtelling habits?

answer: nothing...

i could refer you to the lawsuit where fauxnews fought for, and won, the right to force it's reporters to lie.

but that would be redundant.

I love the way people latch on to that lawsuit and rant about Fox..... how often do you mention the other news outlets involved in that lawsuit? Never. Not once. It is disingenuous at best to single out Fox. Cherry picking and half truths do not represent the truth, mo chara, they just don't.

 

[edthecynic]

They are a different type of organization to FNC. Comparing apples to organutans might suit a political point scoring exercise but that doesn't make it a legit comparison.

which says what about their truthtelling habits?

answer: nothing...

i could refer you to the lawsuit where fauxnews fought for, and won, the right to force it's reporters to lie.

but that would be redundant.

I love the way people latch on to that lawsuit and rant about Fox..... how often do you mention the other news outlets involved in that lawsuit? Never. Not once. It is disingenuous at best to single out Fox. Cherry picking and half truths do not represent the truth, mo chara, they just don't.

Fox was the only company involved in the lawsuit. Do you mean the 5 companies, Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., that filed Amicus briefs?

 

[MaggieMae]

only when used in conjunction with prison planet and the i ching

I always double check any stories with my 'secret source'...

So do I. I wonder if they hobnob with each other in the halls?

 

[MaggieMae]

Its generally more reliable and trustworthy than the media.

but is it as trustworthy as a prank caller or the huffy puffy post?

Absolutely.

Arianna has a few of her own good sources too. (And no, she's not mine. Mine isn't a pundit.)

 

[California Girl]

which says what about their truthtelling habits?

answer: nothing...

i could refer you to the lawsuit where fauxnews fought for, and won, the right to force it's reporters to lie.

but that would be redundant.

I love the way people latch on to that lawsuit and rant about Fox..... how often do you mention the other news outlets involved in that lawsuit? Never. Not once. It is disingenuous at best to single out Fox. Cherry picking and half truths do not represent the truth, mo chara, they just don't.

Fox was the only company involved in the lawsuit. Do you mean the 5 companies, Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., that filed Amicus briefs?

They didn't win the right to lie, you know that, right?

 

[California Girl]

only when used in conjunction with prison planet and the i ching

I always double check any stories with my 'secret source'...

So do I. I wonder if they hobnob with each other in the halls?

I hope not! That would be spooky!

 

[MaggieMae]

only when used in conjunction with prison planet and the i ching

I always double check any stories with my 'secret source'...

Too good.

AARGH!! I missed that. I thought it was CG's signature.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you could take the blinkers off and just look logically at both sites, you might understand that your opinion is formed by your political bias.

For a start, comparing HuffPuff to WND is comparing apples to oranges. Both fruit, but entirely different. As I said, the HuffPuff is a clearing house, WND isn't. And headlines are written to grab a readers attention - they often bear no real relation to the article following the headline... all news orgs do that to some extent. You notice it more from the perspective you disagree with and less so from those you do agree with. That's why critical thinking is quite important.

You mean blinders? You fence sitters slay me, always popping in with your "they all do it" bullshit. You just like to sit around in the middle taking potshots at everyone.

Why not? That way you can never be wrong.

WND is an extremist rightwing rag and in no way compares to mainstream media. Mainstream may be wrong and they can be right but they don't make shit up like WND does.

I don't fence sit, Sarah. I am absolutely unashamedly right wing. What I don't do is follow any media outlet or support one media outlet over another. That's not 'fence sitting', it's intelligence. And they do all do it.

WND is not 'extremist'... any more than the HuffPuff is 'extremist'. Extremist is a little 'throw away' word that used to have some actual meaning, much like 'racist'.... but, fools who can't tell the difference between disagreement and 'hatred' or what is or is not 'hate speech', or what is or is not 'incitement'.... in short, people like you.... you use it to label anything you don't like. It's pathetic.

A long time ago, I used to challenge "reports" found on websites such as Human Events in the comments section, but I actually got booted because they apparently didn't like challenge. I was given no reason, just denied access one day. So much for accepting opposing opinions (and no, I didn't swear).

 

[MaggieMae]

I always double check any stories with my 'secret source'...

So do I. I wonder if they hobnob with each other in the halls?

I hope not! That would be spooky!

I really did think you were talking about a real person. I'm not on my game today.

 

[edthecynic]

I love the way people latch on to that lawsuit and rant about Fox..... how often do you mention the other news outlets involved in that lawsuit? Never. Not once. It is disingenuous at best to single out Fox. Cherry picking and half truths do not represent the truth, mo chara, they just don't.

Fox was the only company involved in the lawsuit. Do you mean the 5 companies, Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., that filed Amicus briefs?

They didn't win the right to lie, you know that, right?

So now that the irrelevance of the Amicus briefs has been established, you are moving the goal posts.

In the appeal Fox argued that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. And as you can see from the decision of the court below, that was the winning point!

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

 

[DiveCon]

what a shock, edthemoron still proving me right for calling him that

 

[California Girl]

So do I. I wonder if they hobnob with each other in the halls?

I hope not! That would be spooky!

I really did think you were talking about a real person. I'm not on my game today.

Sucker!!

 

[California Girl]

Fox was the only company involved in the lawsuit. Do you mean the 5 companies, Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., that filed Amicus briefs?

They didn't win the right to lie, you know that, right?

So now that the irrelevance of the Amicus briefs has been established, you are moving the goal posts.

In the appeal Fox argued that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. And as you can see from the decision of the court below, that was the winning point!

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

So, they did not win the 'right to lie' then, did they. And the reason why a whole bunch of other news outlet supported Fox..... because they all have similar policies. It was not about 'lying'. So, in fact... anyone who claims that 'Fox won the right to lie' is, in fact, lying.

 

[edthecynic]

They didn't win the right to lie, you know that, right?

So now that the irrelevance of the Amicus briefs has been established, you are moving the goal posts.

In the appeal Fox argued that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. And as you can see from the decision of the court below, that was the winning point!

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

So, they did not win the 'right to lie' then, did they. And the reason why a whole bunch of other news outlet supported Fox..... because they all have similar policies. It was not about 'lying'. So, in fact... anyone who claims that 'Fox won the right to lie' is, in fact, lying.

So you are arguing that a deliberate distortion of the truth IS the truth.

So again we see CON$ on both sides of the "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is" argument.
A deliberate distortion is not a lie. BRILLIANT!

 

[GHook93]

Another propaganda thread created by Skippy the riverboat gambler.

They have an agenda not doubt and like leftist sources they do leave out reporting from the other point of view. But they have writers of all creds and colors, heck their founder Farah is a Lebanese Arab. They have blacks, whites, jews and latinos write for them. Contrary to popular attacks by the left, they do not report lies (definitely report in a bias way, but not lies).

 

[DiveCon]

So now that the irrelevance of the Amicus briefs has been established, you are moving the goal posts.

In the appeal Fox argued that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. And as you can see from the decision of the court below, that was the winning point!

So, they did not win the 'right to lie' then, did they. And the reason why a whole bunch of other news outlet supported Fox..... because they all have similar policies. It was not about 'lying'. So, in fact... anyone who claims that 'Fox won the right to lie' is, in fact, lying.

So you are arguing that a deliberate distortion of the truth IS the truth.

So again we see CON$ on both sides of the "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is" argument.
A deliberate distortion is not a lie. BRILLIANT!

you remain a fucking idiot
thanks for proving that over and over