The EU debate - Part III

And losing most weeks due to his ****e tactics, another wetty classic

Wrong thread btw alecart

 

That's better, right thread.

 

Wrong thread.You know nothing about football either.

 

You really are dense, fella

 

Sure I don't, you stupid auld ****

 

That's right hit him where it hurts - his football knowledge... on a politics thread

 

Mornin ****tard.....only 3 more days.

 

Really? Hull is a toilet.

 

But I dont live near Kidderminster

try again cupcake, you are starting to look very silly now

 

Says a kid who lives in London

 

But you are a bin dipper, so its counts, how is your heart today, I think you need to take a nap, you seem to be getting a little red faced.

 

Yet again you **** up an insult

Cabbage

 

Wishing death in me again I see skinhead

Has your Mrs let slip about chewing off her colleague yet?

 

Im trying to save you, I love nothing more than taking the piss out of you

 

You're the forum moron lad, everyone simply laughs at your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, and your never ending **** ups.

 

The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False

One’s views of Assange are completely irrelevant to this article, which is not about Assange. This article, instead, is about a report published this week by The Guardian that recklessly attributed to Assange comments that he did not make. This article is about how those false claims — fabrications, really — were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news. The purpose of this article is to underscore, yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving perpetrators of it.

THE SHODDY AND misleading Guardian article, written by Ben Jacobs, was published on December 24. It made two primary claims — both of which are demonstrably false. The first false claim was hyped in the article’s headline: “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview.” This claim was repeated in the first paragraph of the article: “Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has offered guarded praise of Donald Trump. …”

The second claim was an even worse assault on basic journalism. Jacobs set up this claim by asserting that Assange “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” The only “evidence” offered for this extraordinary claim was that Assange, in 2012, conducted eight interviews that were broadcast on RT. With the claimed Assange-Putin alliance implanted, Jacobs then wrote: “In his interview with la Repubblica, [Assange] said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.”

The reason these two claims are so significant, so certain to attract massive numbers of clicks and shares, is obvious. They play directly into the biases of Clinton supporters and flatter their central narrative about the election: that Clinton lost because the Kremlin used its agents, such as Assange, to boost Trump and sink Clinton. By design, the article makes it seem as though Assange is heralding Russia as such a free, vibrant, and transparent political culture that — in contrast to the repressive West — no whistleblowing is needed, all while praising Trump.

But none of that actually happened. Those claims are made up.

Despite how much online attention it received, Jacobs’s Guardian article contained no original reporting. Indeed, it did nothing but purport to summarize the work of an actually diligent journalist: Stefania Maurizi of the Italian daily la Repubblica, who traveled to London and conducted the interview with Assange. Maurizi’s interview was conducted in English, and la Repubblica published the transcript online. Jacobs’s “work” consisted of nothing other than purporting to re-write the parts of that interview he wanted to highlight, so that he and The Guardian could receive the traffic for her work.

Ever since the Guardian article was published and went viral, Maurizi has repeatedly objected to the false claims being made about what Assange said in their interview. But while Western journalists keep re-tweeting and sharing The Guardian’s second-hand summary of this interview, they completely ignore Maurizi’s protests — for reasons that are both noxious and revealing.




https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29...nterview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/

 

At least my heart is in good condition.
Still waiting for you to tell us your line of work, or am I right that you run a market stall selling women's thongs?

 

^^^^^^^ Did not read ^^^^^

 

Have you been to Hull?

 

I have, loads. It's a ****ing **** hole.