Before we had fake news we had false narratives.
Its a technique where facts are taken out of context and spun into a whole new story.
This has been done throughout history as a way to justify actions which were in fact unjustifiable.
When Hitler invaded Poland, the German people were told how Poland attacked first.
We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident which may represent a similar rearrangement of facts.
The only real defense we have is a free press. However the thing which can defeat a free press is fake news.
If you have news outlets which follow no rules and publish stories meant to confuse and contradict we can create a confused public.
This seems to be the main tactic currently being employed by the Republican party, although of course in their version it is the Democrats.
Too many Americans have bought into alternative news outlets, some of which have high ratings, because they tend to be more controversial and entertaining.
So faced with boring legitimate news vs entertaining false narratives, we have to hope Americans make the right choice.
Its a close call.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
The Internet has made us Stupid
I was watching something on the Internet the other day talking about the top things many Americans believe that aren't true.
It was a bit scary in many respects but based on some results of "man on the street" interviews, many were not that surprising (yes a lot believe big foot exists).
However one statistic, based on a Pew Study was scary.
Almost 50% of Americans believe that major media just makes up false stories.
Yes I've heard the dontard carry on about fake media, but I didn't realize he was believed by so many.
I'm not talking about fringe news outlets either, but network news and respected newspapers.
I realize they use deceptive headlines and other tricks to catch your interest but even those publications you see on the checkout line turn out to use deceptive headlines but actually in the story stick to actual facts mostly.
Yes some of the stuff you see on social media is just false but that is from tainted sources.
I blame the Internet but it is also the constant attacks we see on some cable news and of course the dontard.
It explains a lot if that many people simply ignore factual news reports and rely on propaganda.
Its also scary.
https://www.journalism.org/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/
It was a bit scary in many respects but based on some results of "man on the street" interviews, many were not that surprising (yes a lot believe big foot exists).
However one statistic, based on a Pew Study was scary.
Almost 50% of Americans believe that major media just makes up false stories.
Yes I've heard the dontard carry on about fake media, but I didn't realize he was believed by so many.
I'm not talking about fringe news outlets either, but network news and respected newspapers.
I realize they use deceptive headlines and other tricks to catch your interest but even those publications you see on the checkout line turn out to use deceptive headlines but actually in the story stick to actual facts mostly.
Yes some of the stuff you see on social media is just false but that is from tainted sources.
I blame the Internet but it is also the constant attacks we see on some cable news and of course the dontard.
It explains a lot if that many people simply ignore factual news reports and rely on propaganda.
Its also scary.
https://www.journalism.org/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
The Real Fake News
One of the things that has always been true but seems even more true recently is that some media counts on people just reading the headlines.
The headlines can however be quite misleading, especially when they are inspired by partisan sentiments.
I saw an article today that implied in its headline how a new policy by our current President was going to revitalize the coal industry. The article itself said no such thing.
Yes the new policy would roll back some environmental restrictions on use of coal in power plants but it also noted that no one wants to invest in coal when cleaner alternatives like natural gas are cheaper. It went on to point out how coal based plants are still closing at record rates.
So the headline was at best misleading and more likely a political stunt designed to let "headline readers" believe that coal was being revived. Some of the quotes in the article were attributed to people with close ties to the administration re-election campaign and clearly it was designed to provide a false impression in certain swing states.
There are more and more stories like that, many of which are originated by Fox where the headline is not supported by and sometimes contradicted by the story within.
Do we see similar misrepresentations on the liberal side? I'm sure some exist, but it really seems much more flagrant on the right.
The solution is to read the articles, they maintain a bit of journalistic integrity there.
Or else believe the real "fake" news.
The headlines can however be quite misleading, especially when they are inspired by partisan sentiments.
I saw an article today that implied in its headline how a new policy by our current President was going to revitalize the coal industry. The article itself said no such thing.
Yes the new policy would roll back some environmental restrictions on use of coal in power plants but it also noted that no one wants to invest in coal when cleaner alternatives like natural gas are cheaper. It went on to point out how coal based plants are still closing at record rates.
So the headline was at best misleading and more likely a political stunt designed to let "headline readers" believe that coal was being revived. Some of the quotes in the article were attributed to people with close ties to the administration re-election campaign and clearly it was designed to provide a false impression in certain swing states.
There are more and more stories like that, many of which are originated by Fox where the headline is not supported by and sometimes contradicted by the story within.
Do we see similar misrepresentations on the liberal side? I'm sure some exist, but it really seems much more flagrant on the right.
The solution is to read the articles, they maintain a bit of journalistic integrity there.
Or else believe the real "fake" news.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Not News
We don't have as much fake news as we have meaningless news.
There are things that actually have an impact on our lives and then there are things that are of interest to a very small number of people which have taken over what should be real news.
Example, real news would be whether or not the President committed an impeachable offense. If he did it should result in impeachment.
What is being covered is the ins and outs of the politics and how the American people would react.
Guilt or innocence is not a matter of popularity, or at least it shouldn't be.
Most of the coverage I see and hear isn't so much about actual news as about, for lack of a better term, meta news.
An event like tariffs can spawn a million stories when the story is really simply what tariffs were imposed and how does it impact us.
We are so interested in filling air space that we have to predict how people will react conduct polls to see how we reacted and then critique the polls to predict how they might impact the next election.
So much is going to happen between now and then that I'm pretty sure this is just space filler.
Some fake news is in fact mingled in there, but the problem is that so much meaningless news can overcome what is real.
Is the Supreme Court going to overturn Roe vs Wade, will they even hear a case about it.
We love to speculate and predict, but its not really news.
Its nothing at all.
There are things that actually have an impact on our lives and then there are things that are of interest to a very small number of people which have taken over what should be real news.
Example, real news would be whether or not the President committed an impeachable offense. If he did it should result in impeachment.
What is being covered is the ins and outs of the politics and how the American people would react.
Guilt or innocence is not a matter of popularity, or at least it shouldn't be.
Most of the coverage I see and hear isn't so much about actual news as about, for lack of a better term, meta news.
An event like tariffs can spawn a million stories when the story is really simply what tariffs were imposed and how does it impact us.
We are so interested in filling air space that we have to predict how people will react conduct polls to see how we reacted and then critique the polls to predict how they might impact the next election.
So much is going to happen between now and then that I'm pretty sure this is just space filler.
Some fake news is in fact mingled in there, but the problem is that so much meaningless news can overcome what is real.
Is the Supreme Court going to overturn Roe vs Wade, will they even hear a case about it.
We love to speculate and predict, but its not really news.
Its nothing at all.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
News?
Sometimes we give coverage to stories that really don't deserve any.
Often assumptions are made about the motivations that are purely speculative and usually wrong.
For example there was a short to do in some papers over a picture of Prom going boys, some of whom looked like they were giving a NAZI salute. Of course it was also a good interpretation that they froze their arms in the picture when they were just waving.
Looking for the worst in things has become a universal occupation, as people hunt and hope to find something that gets them a few minutes of fame on social media.
Once in a while they find something legitimate but much of the time it is simply a misinterpretation.
Must of what you see on the Internet is simply wrong.
It is simply not held up to any particular standards unless of course it is published by one of the traditional media sources.
Its not much different than it always was, when rumors would get circulated that had little or no basis in fact, sometimes to promote a cause, except that with social media, word of mouth is so much faster.
Its basically how the Russians influenced the last election by posting purely fictitious items and having them spread rapidly without any verification.
This does create a lot of fake news, but not the fake news that the President talks about, he wants to categorize legitimate news as fake news.
In fact, he spreads a lot of fake news himself as much as he lies.
Unfortunately determining what is and what isn't fake becomes our responsibility and we are simply not very good at it.
There are real facts out there, just might be hard to find them.
Often assumptions are made about the motivations that are purely speculative and usually wrong.
For example there was a short to do in some papers over a picture of Prom going boys, some of whom looked like they were giving a NAZI salute. Of course it was also a good interpretation that they froze their arms in the picture when they were just waving.
Looking for the worst in things has become a universal occupation, as people hunt and hope to find something that gets them a few minutes of fame on social media.
Once in a while they find something legitimate but much of the time it is simply a misinterpretation.
Must of what you see on the Internet is simply wrong.
It is simply not held up to any particular standards unless of course it is published by one of the traditional media sources.
Its not much different than it always was, when rumors would get circulated that had little or no basis in fact, sometimes to promote a cause, except that with social media, word of mouth is so much faster.
Its basically how the Russians influenced the last election by posting purely fictitious items and having them spread rapidly without any verification.
This does create a lot of fake news, but not the fake news that the President talks about, he wants to categorize legitimate news as fake news.
In fact, he spreads a lot of fake news himself as much as he lies.
Unfortunately determining what is and what isn't fake becomes our responsibility and we are simply not very good at it.
There are real facts out there, just might be hard to find them.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Fake News?
Fake news has become a term that is used quite frequently nowadays mostly as a way to simply deny some facts.
The great majority of news is not fake, but some is and the best way to distinguish is not by listening to politicians but to consider the source.
First, there are shows on "news" networks that are opinion shows, not news shows.
When someone on one of those shows announces something it doesn't have to live up to any journalistic standards and is primarily designed for entertainment and ratings.
A lot of it is simply speculative, and while they are entitled to do that it is incumbent on the viewer to realize the speculation, no matter how logical it might sound, is generally one sided and the facts, if any, presented were chosen to prove a point.
It is more in the line of an infomercial rather than a news story.
Still many viewers don't make those distinctions.
The vast majority of what is published in the mainstream media is in fact real news, although some mistakes and phony stories get published or aired.
The more reputable or recognized the more likely the screening is effective, but, there always is the make it interesting factor.
They want you to watch or read or listen to what they are putting on so they try to find the entertaining factors. So in many perfectly accurate news stories you will see something inserted such as in the opinion of x this means something dreadful is likely. This is actually true but that opinion may very well not be the only one or even the best one.
It is accurate that it is that person's opinion, so not fake news. Its the opinion that might be the problem.
Stick with the fact from a reputable source and form your own opinion, is probably the safest approach.
The great majority of news is not fake, but some is and the best way to distinguish is not by listening to politicians but to consider the source.
First, there are shows on "news" networks that are opinion shows, not news shows.
When someone on one of those shows announces something it doesn't have to live up to any journalistic standards and is primarily designed for entertainment and ratings.
A lot of it is simply speculative, and while they are entitled to do that it is incumbent on the viewer to realize the speculation, no matter how logical it might sound, is generally one sided and the facts, if any, presented were chosen to prove a point.
It is more in the line of an infomercial rather than a news story.
Still many viewers don't make those distinctions.
The vast majority of what is published in the mainstream media is in fact real news, although some mistakes and phony stories get published or aired.
The more reputable or recognized the more likely the screening is effective, but, there always is the make it interesting factor.
They want you to watch or read or listen to what they are putting on so they try to find the entertaining factors. So in many perfectly accurate news stories you will see something inserted such as in the opinion of x this means something dreadful is likely. This is actually true but that opinion may very well not be the only one or even the best one.
It is accurate that it is that person's opinion, so not fake news. Its the opinion that might be the problem.
Stick with the fact from a reputable source and form your own opinion, is probably the safest approach.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Hint of Racism?
When you see the candidates put up by the administration and sometimes confirmed by the Senate, you have to wonder does anyone actually look into these guys?
Forget about their political beliefs but when candidate after candidate has questionable issues in their background that indicate they may have been engaged in a racist activity or maybe sexual abuse, why not find someone without those issues?
It seems like they just don't care or at least the administration doesn't.
The explanation is that the qualities they look for are more about loyalty than character and qualifications.
If you have been a loyal member of the party or loyal to the dontard, a nomination is your reward.
Now patronage of this sort has always been a part of politics, although over the years attempts have been made to reduce it. The success of those attempts are obviously limited.
Prior administrations generally tried to present candidates who could survive a background investigation into their character, at least a legitimate one.
That is part of the problem as the explosion of cable news and Internet sources have led to many bogus conspiracy and character accusations.
If you entertain the idea that some prominent democrats ran a sex ring our of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. (they didn't), these accusations seem tame.
It is hard to determine what is valid vs what isn't with all the bogus stuff being tossed about.
There is plenty of fake news, its just not published by the reputable news agencies.
CNN or the New York Times may have an editorial opinion but what they broadcast or publish is consistent with journalistic standards. The same can't be said for many others who express unfounded opinions which have no foundation.
Unfortunately, this is often mistaken for actual news when it isn't.
It creates a kind of smoke screen for the actual issues.
Forget about their political beliefs but when candidate after candidate has questionable issues in their background that indicate they may have been engaged in a racist activity or maybe sexual abuse, why not find someone without those issues?
It seems like they just don't care or at least the administration doesn't.
The explanation is that the qualities they look for are more about loyalty than character and qualifications.
If you have been a loyal member of the party or loyal to the dontard, a nomination is your reward.
Now patronage of this sort has always been a part of politics, although over the years attempts have been made to reduce it. The success of those attempts are obviously limited.
Prior administrations generally tried to present candidates who could survive a background investigation into their character, at least a legitimate one.
That is part of the problem as the explosion of cable news and Internet sources have led to many bogus conspiracy and character accusations.
If you entertain the idea that some prominent democrats ran a sex ring our of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. (they didn't), these accusations seem tame.
It is hard to determine what is valid vs what isn't with all the bogus stuff being tossed about.
There is plenty of fake news, its just not published by the reputable news agencies.
CNN or the New York Times may have an editorial opinion but what they broadcast or publish is consistent with journalistic standards. The same can't be said for many others who express unfounded opinions which have no foundation.
Unfortunately, this is often mistaken for actual news when it isn't.
It creates a kind of smoke screen for the actual issues.
Monday, August 27, 2018
Scary
We are seeing how policies without strategy fall short.
The dontard adopted a lot of policies from the talking heads on a particular network, assuming they had some idea of what they were talking about.
The really were more interested in being controversial and getting ratings.
Some of the experts they had on might have had some clue but the network pursues a particular approach designed to attract audience.
They aren't going for the best and the brightest either.
Now this is demagoguery and it strikes a populist tone regardless of the actual facts of the situation.
They cater to people who want strict enforcement of immigration laws ignoring the fact that the situation required certain laborers access to provide cheap labor.
The push for tough foreign policy without considering the fact that the rest of the world has its own opinion and as rich and strong as we are, history proves it won't last if we overextend ourselves.
They promote all sorts of conspiracy theories without much actual proof, fabricating for controversy and a bigger audience.
They are an entertainment network, about on the same level as say the cartoon network.
They just have real life cartoons.
They are certainly entitled to be what they are, it is a free country, but they really can't be taken very seriously most of the time.
They now have found their ideal toddler, who watches and believes.
Scary.
The dontard adopted a lot of policies from the talking heads on a particular network, assuming they had some idea of what they were talking about.
The really were more interested in being controversial and getting ratings.
Some of the experts they had on might have had some clue but the network pursues a particular approach designed to attract audience.
They aren't going for the best and the brightest either.
Now this is demagoguery and it strikes a populist tone regardless of the actual facts of the situation.
They cater to people who want strict enforcement of immigration laws ignoring the fact that the situation required certain laborers access to provide cheap labor.
The push for tough foreign policy without considering the fact that the rest of the world has its own opinion and as rich and strong as we are, history proves it won't last if we overextend ourselves.
They promote all sorts of conspiracy theories without much actual proof, fabricating for controversy and a bigger audience.
They are an entertainment network, about on the same level as say the cartoon network.
They just have real life cartoons.
They are certainly entitled to be what they are, it is a free country, but they really can't be taken very seriously most of the time.
They now have found their ideal toddler, who watches and believes.
Scary.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Media
Saw a recent poll where most Americans are in favor of helping the farmers hurt by our tariff wars.
I don't think they should be hurt either, but of course it still represents a type of social welfare program that the dontard and his supporters oppose.
The fact that what they do and what they say is contradictory is not surprising.
It isn't even entirely their fault since they get fed so much bad information.
One of the trends in America over the last couple of decades has been the infusion of "conservative" media.
Some think this was a reaction to the "liberal" media but it really depends on where you think the American media was.
Trying to report facts without opinion was the old standard. Opinions were identified as such in editorials or Op-eds.
Fact based reporting was by definition non-political, but it was viewed by some as liberal bias.
Of course some examples of news stories that seemed to have a liberal bias could be found, there are many many news stories out there written by many different people. You can find examples of almost anything, but to argue there was a liberal conspiracy is actually giving liberals too much credit.
What may be true is that the way journalism was taught and practiced tended to focus on actual events, not opinions.
This has changed with the advent of some clear opinion media. CNN which was our first cable news channel was deemed conservative although that is of course a matter of opinion.
We see FOX which is nothing but opinion and more insidiously we see local newspapers being controlled more and more by groups pushing an agenda.
Certainly, having a political position is every one's right, but opinion should be labeled as such not hidden in news stories.
At last not as a policy.
I don't think they should be hurt either, but of course it still represents a type of social welfare program that the dontard and his supporters oppose.
The fact that what they do and what they say is contradictory is not surprising.
It isn't even entirely their fault since they get fed so much bad information.
One of the trends in America over the last couple of decades has been the infusion of "conservative" media.
Some think this was a reaction to the "liberal" media but it really depends on where you think the American media was.
Trying to report facts without opinion was the old standard. Opinions were identified as such in editorials or Op-eds.
Fact based reporting was by definition non-political, but it was viewed by some as liberal bias.
Of course some examples of news stories that seemed to have a liberal bias could be found, there are many many news stories out there written by many different people. You can find examples of almost anything, but to argue there was a liberal conspiracy is actually giving liberals too much credit.
What may be true is that the way journalism was taught and practiced tended to focus on actual events, not opinions.
This has changed with the advent of some clear opinion media. CNN which was our first cable news channel was deemed conservative although that is of course a matter of opinion.
We see FOX which is nothing but opinion and more insidiously we see local newspapers being controlled more and more by groups pushing an agenda.
Certainly, having a political position is every one's right, but opinion should be labeled as such not hidden in news stories.
At last not as a policy.
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Spin
In the early 70s when we were still trying to get out of the Vietnam war the Nixon campaign started talking about the silent majority.
Sure the people who stay home, are patriotic, go to work every day and believe in American values aren't on your TV screen rioting, protesting or looting but they really represented the great number of Americans as opposed to those getting all the coverage.
Nixon was elected twice, to a large extent by these very people because similar to out current president he promised to restore the America these people cherished.
Of course he was forced to resign once the true level of his paranoia and illegal behavior became evident, but its likely true that he lost the election in 1960 because of some dirty politics in Chicago and while in retrospect Watergate was totally unnecessary, he didn't want to leave it to chance.
The point is that at all times in this country we have a significant majority of people who want things to be "normal".
They would like America to be the way they remember it, safe, prosperous, and a bit boring.
They aren't opposed to progress as long as the progress isn't actually disruptive.
Take the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
First the media and republicans were able to rebrand it as Obamacare and present it as an expensive give away that was going to cost these folks more money for less benefits with uncertain results.
The democrats lost the public affairs contest almost immediately and did little to overcome the bad press. As it turns out, there were a lot of things about it these people liked, but the incessant bad press cost a lot of elections and grief.
Similarly, we see the issue of immigration clearly being presented in negative ways which are generally untrue or at least not representative of the real situation.
A theme has been established about how the liberal elite are trying to socialize this country and take away the America these people love.
Its not true, but its the story that is out there, and it needs to be countered.
The things hurting their way of life are corporate decisions to reduce the cost of production and automation. They think its immigration and gay marriage.
Talk about spin.
Sure the people who stay home, are patriotic, go to work every day and believe in American values aren't on your TV screen rioting, protesting or looting but they really represented the great number of Americans as opposed to those getting all the coverage.
Nixon was elected twice, to a large extent by these very people because similar to out current president he promised to restore the America these people cherished.
Of course he was forced to resign once the true level of his paranoia and illegal behavior became evident, but its likely true that he lost the election in 1960 because of some dirty politics in Chicago and while in retrospect Watergate was totally unnecessary, he didn't want to leave it to chance.
The point is that at all times in this country we have a significant majority of people who want things to be "normal".
They would like America to be the way they remember it, safe, prosperous, and a bit boring.
They aren't opposed to progress as long as the progress isn't actually disruptive.
Take the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
First the media and republicans were able to rebrand it as Obamacare and present it as an expensive give away that was going to cost these folks more money for less benefits with uncertain results.
The democrats lost the public affairs contest almost immediately and did little to overcome the bad press. As it turns out, there were a lot of things about it these people liked, but the incessant bad press cost a lot of elections and grief.
Similarly, we see the issue of immigration clearly being presented in negative ways which are generally untrue or at least not representative of the real situation.
A theme has been established about how the liberal elite are trying to socialize this country and take away the America these people love.
Its not true, but its the story that is out there, and it needs to be countered.
The things hurting their way of life are corporate decisions to reduce the cost of production and automation. They think its immigration and gay marriage.
Talk about spin.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Talking Heads
The world is a complex place, which was apparently a surprise to the dontard.
He seemed to believe that he could just tell people what to do and they would do it.
This may have been one of the reasons he had so many bankruptcies, of course it may have been because they did do what he asked.
His judgment is based on what people call talking heads, especially the ones on one particular news network.
Talking heads are not news people, they are opinion people who find facts that sort of support what they want to say.
A lot of these so called facts are really opinions of other people or half-truths that can be twisted like a balloon animal to resemble a real animal.
They aren't real animals and a lot of these facts aren't real facts.
The fact that they get repeated a number of times doesn't make them true, simply persistent.
Even reputable journalists don't get a lot of things right, although what they publish or say has some credibility.
Real events are complex and we always prefer simple answers.
The entire war in Iraq was based on misinterpretation of evidence. It was misinterpreted because the people saw what they wanted to see. When they didn't see real "proof" it was easy to assume it was there anyways, just well hidden.
This is pretty much the way some of our media operates, making leaps of faith and drawing conclusions, at least the talking heads do.
They simplify the complex and our dontard buys it.
Watch out folks!
He seemed to believe that he could just tell people what to do and they would do it.
This may have been one of the reasons he had so many bankruptcies, of course it may have been because they did do what he asked.
His judgment is based on what people call talking heads, especially the ones on one particular news network.
Talking heads are not news people, they are opinion people who find facts that sort of support what they want to say.
A lot of these so called facts are really opinions of other people or half-truths that can be twisted like a balloon animal to resemble a real animal.
They aren't real animals and a lot of these facts aren't real facts.
The fact that they get repeated a number of times doesn't make them true, simply persistent.
Even reputable journalists don't get a lot of things right, although what they publish or say has some credibility.
Real events are complex and we always prefer simple answers.
The entire war in Iraq was based on misinterpretation of evidence. It was misinterpreted because the people saw what they wanted to see. When they didn't see real "proof" it was easy to assume it was there anyways, just well hidden.
This is pretty much the way some of our media operates, making leaps of faith and drawing conclusions, at least the talking heads do.
They simplify the complex and our dontard buys it.
Watch out folks!
Saturday, October 28, 2017
More Saturday Ramblings
Does anyone really want the monkey house to climb around the uranium deal again? We can't afford any more mutants there.
All those fake Government numbers are now touted as good news by the same guy who called them fake.
The good news is that the trends the previous administration left us are still continuing.
Se effectively our dotard told a bunch of children that they came from ugly parents?
The media is taking a lot of abuse and some of it is really deserving of it. However we still have some outlets that try to report facts.
Some of the worst of the web sites promoting garbage have decreased traffic according to a recent report. Maybe Abe was right about not being to fool all of the people all of the time?
Imagine you go to a music festival and some deranged person starts shooting and you get hit but survive. Then you are attacked by a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming the event never happened? Just imagine.
The release of the JFK papers is really a non-event and if we release more it isn't going to change anything, except we might find out a few embarrassing things about people
I hear people argue that the American public has the right to know. well we do know but people who were promised confidentiality and information related to classified projects that could jeopardize national relations are properly sealed.
The dotard is once again raising the emails as an issue. It served him well even though it had no real substance but its become a bit of a fall back position for him.
Republicans like to roll out Hillary and Nancy Pelosi when they have any trouble. More so that Obama. Guess they have more misogynists than racists, although I'm sure the count is close.
All those fake Government numbers are now touted as good news by the same guy who called them fake.
The good news is that the trends the previous administration left us are still continuing.
Se effectively our dotard told a bunch of children that they came from ugly parents?
The media is taking a lot of abuse and some of it is really deserving of it. However we still have some outlets that try to report facts.
Some of the worst of the web sites promoting garbage have decreased traffic according to a recent report. Maybe Abe was right about not being to fool all of the people all of the time?
Imagine you go to a music festival and some deranged person starts shooting and you get hit but survive. Then you are attacked by a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming the event never happened? Just imagine.
The release of the JFK papers is really a non-event and if we release more it isn't going to change anything, except we might find out a few embarrassing things about people
I hear people argue that the American public has the right to know. well we do know but people who were promised confidentiality and information related to classified projects that could jeopardize national relations are properly sealed.
The dotard is once again raising the emails as an issue. It served him well even though it had no real substance but its become a bit of a fall back position for him.
Republicans like to roll out Hillary and Nancy Pelosi when they have any trouble. More so that Obama. Guess they have more misogynists than racists, although I'm sure the count is close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)