LOL. "Guys, guys, THIS HAPPENED, it was done BY THE MEDIA, you just have to take my extremely partisan and untrustworthy word for it"

You don't know what "corroboration" means, do you?

We also got the calendar from Kavanaugh, which did appear to have a party marked on it around the time of the alleged assault. Furthermore, Ford gave her testimony under penalty of perjury. Rudy has done no such thing.

Name dropping Avenatti (here, I've spelled it right for you so that you can google it better and find an actual citation) and Ford doesn't "show" anything. You're making claims about how the media treated their stories without providing a single word about what the media actually said. That you're too cowardly to actually show a single shred of the coverage of these stories is laughable.

This is what you do, though. Like I mentioned, you and Goofy will not grant anything. It does not matter what I cite. I don't know why you want to argue those various things with me. We know the result. You won't concede that any of them lacked skepticism, despite being unverified and unsubstantianted.

You and Goofy can call me what you want, but I'm not playing you game where you will argue endlessly against what right in front of your face. Like, who would argue against the media propagating unverified and unsubstantiated claims with zero skepticism? You would be taking the negative on that. You really need proof they do that?

Then do it for Original Position, who also expects citations and thinks you're full of ****.

But, like, I believe words have meaning. That you're too cowardly to even attempt to try to rub in our faces some of them from articles you claim are so damning of the media is pretty telling.

Oh, so you have a corroboration of a party, not an assault.

I'm not doing it for anyone.


When you dispute that fact the media propagates unsubstantiated and unverified claims all the time with no skepticism, you are not being honest. How do you think pump and dump works?

I guess you don't know what "corroborate" means.

Nope. I asked what the actual substance of the media scandal was here and you give me nothing. The media being overly credulous towards Avanetti doesn't mean they should be overly credulous towards Giuliani as well. I assume you agree with this. I'm not disagreeing with you about whether the media did any particular wrong action with regards to Hunter's laptop, because you've made no claim for me to disagree with, except false ones. It seems to me you just have a general indictment of the media and you wanted to use this as an excuse to talk about it.

I think the rightwing response to leftwing bias is worse than the disease, so I'm not handing out plaudits to anyone here. Mostly, I read from what I think are the best sources and try to be aware of the perspective of the sources I use. The NYT and WaPo aren't the best, but they are pretty good imo - people who read them regularly will be some of the most informed people around. Certainly better than relying on cable news, FB or Twitter, or 2p2 Politics for your information.

From the OP:



You don't say.

Right, so all we have is your bullshit claims with no evidence and an explicit refusal to provide any. brb, gonna go print out your posts and wipe my ass with them, which is the only way in which the words you write here will ever be useful

Here is a well sourced article....you'll find it in the OP as well:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-t...uppression-136


You really are amazing. It's been in the OP all along, but you continue to lie about what I have done, or haven't done and you've made several post alleging that, and you did not even read what was cited in the OP.

I walked the Goofy right into a faceplant, again.

From the thread title:

"The media handling of Hunter laptop story is a scandal."

"Actually, the media handling of laptop story is fine, but they really bungled the Dreyfus affair, that shows the general state of media is a scandal."

You feel nice and safe in that motte there?

I don't know how else to explain it. The issue is broader than the NYP story. There is a meta issue. This type of behavior contributed to the Enron being able to esstentially busllhit people. Except the media is doing it on politics now. They have their favorites to which they will do almost anything to protect.

From the article in the OP:

We don't know if it's a scandal.

Huh? Where does that article back up your claims about, for example, "the media" calling Kavanaugh skeptics sexist? You've made specific claims throughout this discussion that you've repeatedly declined to provide evidence for, and this weak deflection to claiming Taibbi provides those cites for you is trivially falsifiable by just reading the ****ing article and seeing he does not do so.

What are you talking about? Utterly deranged.

My claim is the media propagates unverified and unsubstantiated claims with little to no skepticism. You dispute this and want evidence. The multitude of Kavanagh stories is just an example of that. If you don't think that is one, review the article in the OP for several more. You will dispute anything I cite. You want to relitigate each one, ad nauseam. I'm not interested in those red herring discussions., especially with someone who disputes what's overwhelmingly clear.

The man cited as the source for the claim that "Editors have been telling charges that any effort to determine whether or not the Biden laptop material is true, or to ask the Biden campaign to confirm or deny the story, will either not be allowed or put through heightened fact-checking procedures" is Glenn Greenwald, co-founder and editor at the Intercept. The article cited for where you can take your Russian interference story straight to print? You guessed it, the Intercept!

Furthermore, the Intercept article does not claim without evidence at all that the NYP story is Russian Interference. It claims:



The actual claims are cited and true.

And that's why your posts are unworthy of anything except being used as toilet paper. You want to blow your diarrhea over this thread and not have to defend any of it.

Generally, I don't think ihiv understands the difference between stories saying "thing x happened" and stories saying "person y said that thing x happened". It seems to be a recurring theme.

Fair enough, I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

That's interesting:

That USA articles talks as if it's fact an inquiry was ongoing:

but...

Where is the skepticism?

What part do you think is untrue in the USA Today article?

It's not about what's untrue. They make a statement of fact, a few times, but provide no indication of where that fact came from, other than a person who said they did not know the scope of the review, only that the FBI was involved. Their statement of fact is unverified and unsubstantiated, yet no skepticism, in fact it's the reverse, it's presented as a fact the FBI is reviewing the laptop for russian interference, which may, or may not be true.

So, the, uh, words that outlined all the skepticism, that you quoted for us, despite that, you're still unable to find the skepticism in the article?