Quote:
Originally Posted by k0nr4d
When an agenda'd, biased mainstream news source that has a financial interest in making drama says they have an anonymous source, I have to take it with a grain of salt and you should too. Mainstream news sources have been known to twist around words and context to fix a narrative.... An anonymous source, which they conveniently can't disclose, says something that conveniently cannot be verified in any way.
Just because it fits your opinions doesn't make it automatically true.
|
Thats great.
But you say "mainstream newsource" like there is a whole world of alternative places that dont have agendas.
Who these wonderful charitable self funding paragons ?
Alex Jones ???
RT.com ?
Brietbart ?
You name me a primary news source and I 100% guarantee that their is an editorial agenda. Or an owner with an agenda. If that agenda fits with your own leanings then you go with it.
The phrase "mainstream media" is a ridiculous as "fake news"or his new one "phoney". Trumpisms designed to put down anyone who disagrees with him. Just like when he said that he would only accept the result of the election if he won.
Then you have Trumps favourite strategy to belittle his opponent. Prefacing the news organisation person or company that is critical of him with the title "failing", or referring to whatever he thinks their "ratings" are.
"Enemies of the People".
Right ?