NYT Crowned The King of Fake News Walks back Criticism of Reporters As On-Line Subscriptions Surge

[easyt65]

Gallup is not a media site. They are an independent polling organization. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you don't know news from nooze.

I actually new that - it was a JOKE - thus the '' at the end of the statement.

Damn, snowflakes are so uptight and have no sense of humor!

 

[WaitingFor2020]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

1. No I am pointing out that the NY Times was apologetic for engaging in fake News...until they saw how their lack of journalistic integrity sold subscriptions - >Cha-Ching<.

2. There used to be a time in this country when journalistic integrity actually meant something in this country. Reporters diligently worked their butts off to get the story right and Publishers would not let the story go out unless it was factual and proven. 'Mistakes' were RARE!

That is NOT the case today. What we are seeing here is an intentional choice to put out KNOW LIES, manipulated stories, and the refusal to cover news that was detrimental to their partisan-preferred party.

CNN is the PERFECT example of this - they 'made no mistake'. ON AIR, openly - live on nation-wide TV - they declared they had done everything they could possibly do to help Hillary, to include giving her a pass on all of her scandals.

So don's piss on my leg, as the saying goes, and tell me that it's raining. Some media sources may have had 'errors', but no way in hell all of them did.

1. No, you are wrong. The editor said the tweets on Twitter by three reporters were not appropriate. Read your own damn link, stupid.

 

[Damian]

Back in the day, before NYT hit the online, I used to buy the newspaper. After reading it, I would use it for my then 1 year old Muffy, a brown and black Chihuahua. She would stare at the comic section, and then would do her business.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Gallup is not a media site. They are an independent polling organization. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you don't know news from nooze.

I actually new that - it was a JOKE - thus the '' at the end of the statement.

Damn, snowflakes are so uptight and have no sense of humor!

Oh, sure we do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

Sure! All news is fake unless it comes from you or Trump. That makes sense

The credo of the leftist media is "serve the party." What the NY Times and Washington Post prints is occasionally accurate, but that is purely coincidental. The publications seek to print that which promotes leftism or libels those on the right. Whether stories are factual is simply not part of what is considered when deciding what to publish.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Back in the day, before NYT hit the online, I used to buy the newspaper. After reading it, I would use it for my then 1 year old Muffy, a brown and black Chihuahua. She would stare at the comic section, and then would do her business.

I have not read the rag in years, but when did they start having a comic page?

 

[ClosedCaption]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

1. No I am pointing out that the NY Times was apologetic for engaging in fake News...until they saw how their lack of journalistic integrity sold subscriptions - >Cha-Ching<.

Except instead of pointing that out you just assert that because he went after his own journalists tweets then that somehow translates into Subscriptions and a reversal of his apologies. That didnt happen. You just said it did.

2. There used to be a time in this country when journalistic integrity actually meant something in this country. Reporters diligently worked their butts off to get the story right and Publishers would not let the story go out unless it was factual and proven. 'Mistakes' were RARE!

Mistakes happen. The existence of a mistake doesnt prove a conspiracy.

That is NOT the case today. What we are seeing here is an intentional choice to put out KNOW LIES, manipulated stories, and the refusal to cover news that was detrimental to their partisan-preferred party.

You had a chance to post the KNOWN LIES the media puts out and instead of citing them you just assert they have done those things.

CNN is the PERFECT example of this - they 'made no mistake'. ON AIR, openly - live on nation-wide TV - they declared they had done everything they could possibly do to help Hillary, to include giving her a pass on all of her scandals.

CNN is not Jake Tapper or vice versa and that video you refer to is a perfect example of how you take one phrase out of context and claim its true while complaining about manipulating stories

So don's piss on my leg, as the saying goes, and tell me that it's raining. Some media sources may have had 'errors', but no way in hell all of them did.

So when you were asked what fake news the only thing you can come up with is that Jake Tapper said they helped Clinton and that somehow is a lie or something like that.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Back in the day, before NYT hit the online, I used to buy the newspaper. After reading it, I would use it for my then 1 year old Muffy, a brown and black Chihuahua. She would stare at the comic section, and then would do her business.

The New York Times has never had a comic section. It didn't even used to have a sports section up until about 15 years ago. Next idiot....

 

[ClosedCaption]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

Sure! All news is fake unless it comes from you or Trump. That makes sense

The credo of the leftist media is "serve the party."

Why put quotes around something fake?

What the NY Times and Washington Post prints is occasionally accurate, but that is purely coincidental.

So it is accurate but you think that by saying its accidentally accurate that means something?

The publications seek to print that which promotes leftism or libels those on the right. Whether stories are factual is simply not part of what is considered when deciding what to publish.

According to what? Here is the part where you back up your bullshit with gutteral whines of "believe me"

 

[easyt65]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

1. No I am pointing out that the NY Times was apologetic for engaging in fake News...until they saw how their lack of journalistic integrity sold subscriptions - >Cha-Ching<.

Except instead of pointing that out you just assert that because he went after his own journalists tweets then that somehow translates into Subscriptions and a reversal of his apologies. That didnt happen. You just said it did.

Actually the source of the link I posted inferred it was.

 

[ClosedCaption]

"I used to buy the newspaper and let my dog stare at the section that didnt exist ever"

Suuuuuure

 

[ClosedCaption]

LMAO...So you're saying the news is fake because someone faked a news story and then when it was found to be fake they removed it and apologized. And that means the news is fake? LMAO

1. No I am pointing out that the NY Times was apologetic for engaging in fake News...until they saw how their lack of journalistic integrity sold subscriptions - >Cha-Ching<.

Except instead of pointing that out you just assert that because he went after his own journalists tweets then that somehow translates into Subscriptions and a reversal of his apologies. That didnt happen. You just said it did.

Actually the source of the link I posted inferred it was.

Inferred means what you concluded. Inferred doesnt mean it actually happened. See? Feelings over facts is all you have. You think it and viola its real.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Why put quotes around something fake?

Nothing was fake. The media mentioned doesn't concern itself with facts, only with serving the party.

So it is accurate but you think that by saying its accidentally accurate that means something?

I'm saying that accurate is not a factor in whether they print things, only the impact on the party. If a story slanders the enemies of the party, they print it. If a story promotes the goals of the party, they print it. "Accurate" simply is not part of the calculus.

According to what? Here is the part where you back up your bullshit with gutteral whines of "believe me"

It is painfully obvious.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually the source of the link I posted inferred it was.

Perhaps "conferred?"

 

[easyt65]

I actually new that - it was a JOKE - thus the '' at the end of the statement.
Damn, snowflakes are so uptight and have no sense of humor!

Oh, sure we do.

You need to learn that '' means 'humor', as in 'NOT SERIOUS'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Inferred means what you concluded. Inferred doesnt mean it actually happened. See? Feelings over facts is all you have. You think it and viola its real.

Common mistake, inferred vs. conferred.

One infers from a source. A source confers to a person.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nothing was fake. The media mentioned doesn't concern itself with facts, only with serving the party.

No it didnt thats why all you have is fake quotes and assertions

 

[ClosedCaption]

I say according to what and your proof is feelings

It is painfully obvious.

Well ok, then

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nothing was fake. The media mentioned doesn't concern itself with facts, only with serving the party.

No it didnt thats why all you have is fake quotes and assertions

Fake quotes? Who did I quote?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nothing was fake. The media mentioned doesn't concern itself with facts, only with serving the party.

No it didnt thats why all you have is fake quotes and assertions

Fake quotes? Who did I quote?

No one

The credo of the leftist media is "serve the party."

But you still used quotes as if it really happened