AKA: the MAGA hat kid. A perfect example of how the media lies by omission. Or like George Floyd, lie by exaggeration.
Aaaaand here we go YET AGAIN. What is it now, three years? Four?
I put out a general challenge at that time, for ANYONE ANYWHERE to show ANY example of where "the media lied" about that. To show anywhere they "libeled" the kid. To this moment no one has ever come up with anything at all.
So don't sit here and post mythologies that you can't back up.
The court disagreed with you awarded Sandmann a huge judgement against CNN.
uh huh.
This is way too easy and I hate to beat up on the retarded but umma do it anyway, watch.
-------------------------------------------------------- link?
You aint got the guts to watch and DISCUSS the video media shitfest and their errors I just posted.
Watch me.
Behold the White Knight, festooned in his pom-poms, running in frothing at the mouth to take the burden off the ass-erter who can't do it. Whelp, I just ran the whole thing start to finish. Sadly, all you've got there is some wanker's YouTube upload featuring carefully-edited clips completely devoid of context, no clue who pronouns refer to, dangling sentence fragments, personal opinions of multiple figures, and a narrator making setups for his own snippet-edits.
"The media cited this as evidence..." ---- with no screenshot or evidence at all that "the media" --- which isn't even a thing but with no screenshot of
any part of the media --- actually citing that as evidence. Just narrator ipse dixit. Case in point: 5m57s reads on screen "Dangerous angry racists" yet AGAIN there is no print saying that, no video quote. Just a chyron attributed to nobody. Ipse dixit. Followed by "Phillips and the media called them racists" ... followed by a piece of media
not making that assertion, not even Phillips in an actuality.
I'm afraid saying so, doesn't make it so.
AGAIN (number one) ---- some YouTube wanker making his own selective edits peppered with his own ipse dixits that he never footnotes, does not make a point, does not show any evidence that "the media" (again whatever that is), actually asserted what he asserts they asserted. And oh yes, "suggestions". His main gripe seems to be with Nathan Phillips, but that's not "the media", whatever that is, that's one person's opinions. If the media reports that "Nathan Phillips said the sky is green" and shows a video of Phillips actually saying that, then the story is TRUE, since the verb is "SAID".
Finally, again "the media" is not a thing. It's a plural. To assert that "the media" somehow "said" ANYTHING is an automatic blanket generalization fallacy, because
which media? ABC? The WaPo? Democracy Now? Channel 52 in Port Fart Idaho?
Once AGAIN what I asked for 27 months ago is ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION of whatever "the media" is purported to mean, or whatever slice thereof, printing or uttering a
declarative and COMPLETE SVO sentence, not chopped-up unreferenced context-free snippets set up with ipse dixits. Keeping in mind of course that Twatter buzz is NOT a slice of that "the media". Twatter is a water cooler, not a news source.
In short, the venerable credible source of a YouTube uploader (all hail domini domini) is doing exactly what he accuses "the media"* of doing --- setting up a narrative with implications and disconnected carefully-lined-up snippets.
*whatever the **** that is
Replace his "Lie number X" with "Strawman number X". And kindly refrain from insulting everybody's intelligence, K?
Next in line please.
Let's allow the OP to speak. She made the ass-ertion in the first place, let's see what she's got.
I can give you 300 hours of depositions that Sandman's lawyers obtained from all the media guilty of doing THEIR selective editing to fit their PRECONCEIVED story about a bunch of privileged white boy snots.. Which dissolved like a Speedy Alka Seltzer within days of constant scrutiny..
Cool. And yet, in two-plus years, nobody here has been able to cite any of it here.
Again, looking for a
declarative statement. I'm sure you know what that is. "Subject X took Y action". Not "
it appears Subject X took Y action", not "Person Z
said Subject X took Y action", not "Subject X is
alleged to have taken Y action". When those wordings appear they are so constructed deliberately, specifically to
avoid the declarative statement, "Subject X took Y action". If Person Z
said that Subject X is a three-eyed monster, then the story is that Person Z
said that. It is NOT that "Subject X is a three-eyed monster". The verb is SAID, not IS. This is called attribution and it's essential to journalism (and Law). That's also why I ask for an SVO (subject-verb-object) declarative statement; when a video editor deliberately cuts in at mid-sentence with a pronoun --- "he also said that..." --- that editor is hiding something, because we have no way to know who "he" is without the context. A narrator
providing the context is intentionally obfuscating. If the subject ("he") were not inconvenient to his agenda, the editor could simply let THEM say it. When I see that all manner of red flags go up.
And by the way how do you get access to 300 hours of depositions? Do you work for Mitch McConnell's lawyers?
For the purposes of this question I don't give a shit what Twatter buzz was, what "most people" believe, what anybody's "general consensus" is. When the statement is "the media lied", there must by definition
exist a lie somewhere. Maybe it's in print, maybe it's uttered in broadcast, but it's
quantifiable. And it has yet to show up on this board.
Did ya miss the retraction from CBS news that "upon further review" they had NO VIDEO evidence of ANY of the Covington kids taunting either those righteous and moral Black Hebrew Israelites or the Indian scouts??? It's all there.. The story was as FAKE and Queer as a $2 Billy Jeff Clinton bill..
Yeah I did miss that, and again I'm not seeing it linked here, so again talk is cheap. The suggestion above is that there must exist somewhere some prior declarative statement to the effect that "the Covington kids WERE tauntinig... whoever". I put WERE in all caps because it's the operative verb. Not "appeared to be", not "were said to be", not "people are questioning whether", but WERE. Direct and declarative. We'll need to know whether CBS News was clarifying what they'd said, or what the general buzz was. Could be a YUGE difference.
By the way, still in search of a subject, are we then defining "the media" as "CBS News"? Again, "the media" is a plural and woefully nonspecific.
How about you come off defending the indefensible and actually show ME and the world even TWO MINUTES of any of those kids doing ANYTHING wrong or being the AGGRESSORS?? I'd gladly give you the win because I know I wont have to pay up...
Wow, megaphone much? Billboards-R-us. I'm afraid I don't need to show you anything, as I didn't make an assertion here. I've actually never asserted that anybody was "doing anything wrong" or "being the aggressors", since I wasn't there. Don't put words in my mouth.
I posed the
question. The OP (which is not you) made an assertion, I then asked 'based on what', and I got no answer. Just a lot of humma humma. If I had that many hummas I'd open a middle eastern restaurant.
Maybe I need to boil this down to its elements ---- this isn't a question about who were the aggressors or who did what wrong. It's a question of on what basis the OP made her assertion. And her assertion wasn't about kids or Black Israelites or Indians --- it was about "the media". That is, in fact, the very forum we're sitting in, and correctly so.
Did ya see all media name-calling that was never deserved? And with at least TWO HUGE COURT WINS against CNN and the WashPo - you're just pissing in the wind here.
Two other posters claimed "court wins" too, describing it as in the millions. I'm not aware of any such award, and it would actually be illegal to reveal, so I asked them too, and they too had in response a great big steaming pile of Bupkis. Which I knew they would before I even popped the question. But since you bring it up, by all means go ahead and show us, if not in specific "millions", where the "win" is for any side.
