Interesting
-
Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards | Video | RealClearPolitics[^] The kid said they did it, CNN says they didn't. Who do you believe?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards | Video | RealClearPolitics[^] The kid said they did it, CNN says they didn't. Who do you believe?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Yes, interesting, but definitely not enough evidence there to come down on one side or the other. Obviously CNN have more to lose, so why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this and then lying about it, but on the other hand why would the kid say it if it wasn't true...? I dunno. I think it would be hard for them to be doing this on a regular basis and have zero, not one person blowing the whistlr. Rightist news organizations seem to be constantly implying that there is a horde of people scripting stuff for normal people to say on camera whenever these "real people" stories come out in the news. Strangely enough, that trend seems to rise any time they hear people saying things they don't agree with...
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
-
Yes, interesting, but definitely not enough evidence there to come down on one side or the other. Obviously CNN have more to lose, so why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this and then lying about it, but on the other hand why would the kid say it if it wasn't true...? I dunno. I think it would be hard for them to be doing this on a regular basis and have zero, not one person blowing the whistlr. Rightist news organizations seem to be constantly implying that there is a horde of people scripting stuff for normal people to say on camera whenever these "real people" stories come out in the news. Strangely enough, that trend seems to rise any time they hear people saying things they don't agree with...
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
Mel Padden wrote:
why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this
You're talking about a company proven numerous times to have pushed factually incorrect stories simply because they adhered to the narrative they want to push. When dealing with a story involving an unknown individual with motives that are hard to question, and a corporation known to be liars, one would think you would err on the side of the individual.
-
Mel Padden wrote:
why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this
You're talking about a company proven numerous times to have pushed factually incorrect stories simply because they adhered to the narrative they want to push. When dealing with a story involving an unknown individual with motives that are hard to question, and a corporation known to be liars, one would think you would err on the side of the individual.
Exactly.
-
Yes, interesting, but definitely not enough evidence there to come down on one side or the other. Obviously CNN have more to lose, so why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this and then lying about it, but on the other hand why would the kid say it if it wasn't true...? I dunno. I think it would be hard for them to be doing this on a regular basis and have zero, not one person blowing the whistlr. Rightist news organizations seem to be constantly implying that there is a horde of people scripting stuff for normal people to say on camera whenever these "real people" stories come out in the news. Strangely enough, that trend seems to rise any time they hear people saying things they don't agree with...
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
Mainstream media (left AND right), and politicians are at the top of my "do not trust" list. I don't even trust Trump, and I voted for him.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Mel Padden wrote:
why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this
You're talking about a company proven numerous times to have pushed factually incorrect stories simply because they adhered to the narrative they want to push. When dealing with a story involving an unknown individual with motives that are hard to question, and a corporation known to be liars, one would think you would err on the side of the individual.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You're talking about a company proven numerous times to have pushed factually incorrect stories simply because they adhered to the narrative they want to push.
Have heard it *said* numerous times. Generally by people with a vested interest in having that perceived to be the case. Never seen it proven yet.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
motives that are hard to question
Just because someone got shot at doesn't mean you should blindly accept their words. The statement from CNN clearly implies that his motive was anger, pure and simple, that they did not want to listen to him give a full speech. Whether or not you believe that implication is another thing. I'm certainly not gonna sit here and say that I believe CNN to be above such tactics. What I *am* saying is I don't see evidence to conclusively push me either way. In general, I'm pretty jaded from hearing outlandish unfounded conspiracy theories from almost every right-leaning news source, internet ideologue and general preachifying halfwit that I take all these stories with a grain of salt. About a fistful of it, in fact.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You're talking about a company proven numerous times to have pushed factually incorrect stories simply because they adhered to the narrative they want to push.
Have heard it *said* numerous times. Generally by people with a vested interest in having that perceived to be the case. Never seen it proven yet.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
motives that are hard to question
Just because someone got shot at doesn't mean you should blindly accept their words. The statement from CNN clearly implies that his motive was anger, pure and simple, that they did not want to listen to him give a full speech. Whether or not you believe that implication is another thing. I'm certainly not gonna sit here and say that I believe CNN to be above such tactics. What I *am* saying is I don't see evidence to conclusively push me either way. In general, I'm pretty jaded from hearing outlandish unfounded conspiracy theories from almost every right-leaning news source, internet ideologue and general preachifying halfwit that I take all these stories with a grain of salt. About a fistful of it, in fact.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
Mel Padden wrote:
Never seen it proven yet.
Here is one of many CNN forced to climb down over Trump-WikiLeaks email report | US news | The Guardian[^] If you're going to use ad hominem to dismiss this based on the site that has reported it please let me know how many other sites I need to show you that report the same piece of factual information until you'll admit this is true. If you're going to defend the above in any way shape or form just remember that news outlets have a responsibility to fact check information before they publish it. You know, like how the Florida shooter wasn't actually a part of a white supremacy group. If you want to claim this isn't enough "proof" then again please let me know how many similar articles I need to show you before you admit that CNN have repeatedly published things known to be untrue.
Mel Padden wrote:
Just because someone got shot at doesn't mean you should blindly accept their words.
I didn't say his words should be blindly accepted, I said I found his motives hard to question. I personally can't see why you would lie about this, but I can understand why CNN would lie. That is just my personal opinion, I'm not telling anyone to blindly accept anything and nor do I blindly accept anything.
-
Yes, interesting, but definitely not enough evidence there to come down on one side or the other. Obviously CNN have more to lose, so why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this and then lying about it, but on the other hand why would the kid say it if it wasn't true...? I dunno. I think it would be hard for them to be doing this on a regular basis and have zero, not one person blowing the whistlr. Rightist news organizations seem to be constantly implying that there is a horde of people scripting stuff for normal people to say on camera whenever these "real people" stories come out in the news. Strangely enough, that trend seems to rise any time they hear people saying things they don't agree with...
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
Mel Padden wrote:
.. CNN ... why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity ...
Huh? Who perceives they have integrity :laugh: They are spin doctors at best - presenting editorial content as if it was factual news for longer than I can remember.
-
Mel Padden wrote:
.. CNN ... why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity ...
Huh? Who perceives they have integrity :laugh: They are spin doctors at best - presenting editorial content as if it was factual news for longer than I can remember.
Pualee wrote:
Huh? Who perceives they have integrity
Actually, fewer and fewer people do. The funny part is that they think if they keep doing it, fewer people will notice. Repeat a lie often enough...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Mel Padden wrote:
.. CNN ... why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity ...
Huh? Who perceives they have integrity :laugh: They are spin doctors at best - presenting editorial content as if it was factual news for longer than I can remember.
Pualee wrote:
Who perceives they have integrity
That was my thought. However, several of the left-wingers on this site love to use CNN as their source.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Yes, interesting, but definitely not enough evidence there to come down on one side or the other. Obviously CNN have more to lose, so why would they jeopardise their perceived integrity by doing this and then lying about it, but on the other hand why would the kid say it if it wasn't true...? I dunno. I think it would be hard for them to be doing this on a regular basis and have zero, not one person blowing the whistlr. Rightist news organizations seem to be constantly implying that there is a horde of people scripting stuff for normal people to say on camera whenever these "real people" stories come out in the news. Strangely enough, that trend seems to rise any time they hear people saying things they don't agree with...
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
-
Mel Padden wrote:
Never seen it proven yet.
Here is one of many CNN forced to climb down over Trump-WikiLeaks email report | US news | The Guardian[^] If you're going to use ad hominem to dismiss this based on the site that has reported it please let me know how many other sites I need to show you that report the same piece of factual information until you'll admit this is true. If you're going to defend the above in any way shape or form just remember that news outlets have a responsibility to fact check information before they publish it. You know, like how the Florida shooter wasn't actually a part of a white supremacy group. If you want to claim this isn't enough "proof" then again please let me know how many similar articles I need to show you before you admit that CNN have repeatedly published things known to be untrue.
Mel Padden wrote:
Just because someone got shot at doesn't mean you should blindly accept their words.
I didn't say his words should be blindly accepted, I said I found his motives hard to question. I personally can't see why you would lie about this, but I can understand why CNN would lie. That is just my personal opinion, I'm not telling anyone to blindly accept anything and nor do I blindly accept anything.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Here is one of many
So exactly how many stories does CNN produce in a year? Are you claiming that every single one of the must absolutely be true before it is acceptable? If not what percentage of errors are they allowed to make - exactly? So based on your answers from the above please post the "numerous" examples that prove they have exceeded the limit.
