The Real Scandal: U.S. Media Uses Falsehoods To Defend Joe Biden From Hunter's Emails

[Jack V Savage]

I was directly responding to your declaration, in your post, that the group I had described as being left leaning media were, according to you, the "non-partisan MSM." I didn't attack your motives or shift the discussion. I was simply responding.

Accusing me of partisanship is an attack on my motives. And I pointed out that your example didn't support your claim and that you wouldn't be able to find any real examples to support the idea that there's an MSM conspiracy to suppress negative information about Biden. With regard your complaint about the label, I noted that there can be discussions about instances where non-partisan media makes mistakes that might benefit one party or the other, but that is beside the point. When we're talking about partisan media, it's not a failure if there is partisanship. No one raises an eyebrow over a Breitbart segment that appears unbalanced because it's understood that the organization has a mission that is different from that of the non-partisan, mainstream media. It's important to distinguish between those two very different types of organizations, and the attempt to draw an equivalence between them only misleads people (and is, in fact, key to the rightist efforts to undermine all non-partisan sources of information that is leading to creeping barbarism in our society).

My characterization of the evidence in the Leeds case is absolutely accurate (as is my characterization of the evidence in the Tara Reade case).

You had claimed that there wasn't even evidence that they were on the same plane, when there are, for example, witnesses to that effect. Just for example. I'm sorry, but when someone overplays their hand to the point of making objectively false statements, that tends to undermine their argument. And when an argument builds off such a shaky foundation, it's generally a waste of time to go line by line on it. And that's putting aside the fact that the argument is not even relevant to the point (as I clarified earlier and again above in this post).

 

[Prefect]

Bro, I am happily married 20 years.

It isn't going to work out. Enough with the subtle sexual inuendo.

Stop with the cock talk.

There are a few gay members here already and they might be more receptive.

Republicans released the BIG WHITE COCK pictures. I think it is fair game as to how low the party will go to try to win the election. It really is no different than a shitty stranger trying to fuck with you with real or fake shit that they claim to have found. If you had a stranger do that to you, you would think they were a low life but that is exactly what the republican party did. Or to put it better, they didn't do this to you but they did it to your kids. Let that sink in.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Accusing me of partisanship is an attack on my motives. And I pointed out that your example didn't support your claim and that you wouldn't be able to find any real examples to support the idea that there's an MSM conspiracy to suppress negative information about Biden. With regard your complaint about the label, I noted that there can be discussions about instances where non-partisan media makes mistakes that might benefit one party or the other, but that is beside the point. When we're talking about partisan media, it's not a failure if there is partisanship. No one raises an eyebrow over a Breitbart segment that appears unbalanced because it's understood that the organization has a mission that is different from that of the non-partisan, mainstream media. It's important to distinguish between those two very different types of organizations, and the attempt to draw an equivalence between them only misleads people (and is, in fact, key to the rightist efforts to undermine all non-partisan sources of information that is leading to creeping barbarism in our society).

You had claimed that there wasn't even evidence that they were on the same plane, when there are, for example, witnesses to that effect. Just for example. I'm sorry, but when someone overplays their hand to the point of making objectively false statements, that tends to undermine their argument. And when an argument builds off such a shaky foundation, it's generally a waste of time to go line by line on it. And that's putting aside the fact that the argument is not even relevant to the point (as I clarified earlier and again above in this post).

What? There are witnesses to the fact that they were on the same plane? Where? Who?

Are you referring to the right wing troll who shut the story down by declaring, with zero evidence, that he had been on the same plane and also that she was lying and had been the one who had come onto Trump?

Not only did he come out AFTER the segment on CNN, but he was clearly trolling. He was daring the media to challenge him and ask for corroborating evidence (of course he had none, but he had just as much as she did, which was the point). They saw the ploy and dropped it. CNN certainly didn't follow up their story using him as corroborating evidence. Because they saw through his troll job.

No one saw them on the plane together. Not even this guy:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...d-leeds_n_58014fe2e4b06e047594fa91?ri18n=true
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...legation-british-witness-anthony-gilberthorpe

Here's an excerpt from the story that you seem to be suggesting is truth:

"Gilberthorpe contacted Trump aides to say he had been on the flight sitting across from Trump and Leeds and saw 'nothing untoward.' Although he thought the flight had been 1980 or 1981, Gilberthorpe told the New York Post on Saturday that 'it was she that was the one being flirtatious' and that she had told him she intended 'to marry' Trump."

To pretend that you think that guy's story is credible in any way is laughable.

If you're just making the point that the New York Post is a tabloid that publishes all sorts of unrpoven stuff, then point taken. But I already knew that. I was just noting that when it comes to Trump CNN has fallen into a pattern of doing the same. Which is what they did with Leeds.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you're just making the point that the New York Post is a tabloid that publishes all sorts of unrpoven stuff, then point taken. But I already knew that. I was just noting that when it comes to Trump CNN has fallen into a pattern of doing the same. Which is what they did with Leeds.

Didn't want to waste time on the distraction of the particular case. Might well have been bad judgment to boost Leeds' accusation (though it's still on sounder ground and less shady than the Biden stuff), but that's incidental to the point. There's a clear distinction between partisan and non-partisan news (and comparing CNN to the NY Post is inappropriate). As I said, the effort to draw that false equivalence is part of the right's general pattern of rejecting objective reality in favor of tribal myths, which is one of the greatest threats to our society right now.