The insane thing is, he’s saying all this, whilst promoting and supporting actions by Trump and Musk, that are designed to ensure the (carefully selected) media unquestioningly only report exactly what those guys say to report. The irony/hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
Actual Headlines from Reuters while they were being PAID by USAID to push fake news about Trump: 1. “Trump Jr. says he met Russian lawyer for information on Clinton" - Published: July 11, 2017 - This headline covers the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a focal point of collusion allegations. 2. “Trump adviser had five calls with Russian envoy on day of sanctions: sources" - Published: January 13, 2017 - This refers to Michael Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador, raising questions about whether Trump’s team was signaling Russia on Obama-era sanctions, amplifying distrust. 3. "Democrats ask if Trump’s businesses violate U.S. Constitution with foreign ties" - Published: January 9, 2017 - While focused on the Emoluments Clause, this headline ties into broader concerns about Trump’s financial links to Russia, a recurring theme in agent-like allegations. 4. "Cohen says he briefed Trump on Russia business deal during campaign" - Published: November 29, 2018 - Michael Cohen’s admission about discussing a Trump Tower Moscow project with Trump during the 2016 campaign reignited claims of hidden Russian influence over Trump.
You’ve already had it explained that Reuters (the news agency) weren’t being paid by US-AID, and that the funding (from the defence department) was nothing to do with “pushing fake news” ffs. It was the precise opposite. Why do you need it explained again? Why are YOU pushing ‘fake news’ when you know it’s incorrect? Regardless of that, what part of those headlines constitute fake news? Surely that’s just reporting?
For those people who need things explained more than once to them. US Defense Department contract 'inaccurately represented' on social media, says Thomson Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/business/us-defense-department-contract-inaccurately-represented-social-media-says-2025-02-13/
Science is only relevant when it backs up your own opinion. If science indisputably puts your ideology down the toilet just say "it's a construct" to counter any accusations of ignoring science. It's a great trick to defend the undefendable.
All of this was proven to be fake along with the allegations of Russian collusion. Mueller report effectively debunked a lot of the Russia collusion. Yet even on here people still act like Trump colluded with Russia. All of this is an example of wrap-up smearing
Grok says: Mueller found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," primarily through hacking Democratic Party emails and a social media campaign to influence voters. On the question of coordination with the Trump campaign, the report states: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." This means there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, not that no interactions occurred. However, the report documented numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russians—over 100 by some counts—including offers of assistance, meetings (like the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr.), and communications via intermediaries. Some actions, like Paul Manafort sharing polling data with a Russian associate, raised suspicions but didn’t meet the legal threshold for prosecution due to factors like lack of provable intent or direct evidence tying it to Russian government directives. The interpretation splits along partisan lines: Trump and supporters claimed it as "no collusion," pointing to the lack of charges, while critics argue the report didn’t exonerate him, especially given instances of potential obstruction of justice (a separate section of the report) and the fact that some witnesses lied or withheld information, complicating the investigation.
Every one of those headlines is reporting. It’s not saying it’s true. It’s an example of reporting things that were said by Trump’s son, Trump’s advisor, Democrats and Trump’s lawyer. Do I really need to revise my opinion that you’re not thick? I mean you’re making it very hard to stand by that, particularly when you need things explained multiple times.
Yes, of course, here come the insults again as usual. Anyone that disagrees with you is evil and thick. I get it
That’s probably because to most of us the science of climate change actually matters and the science of identity politics is too easily used to promote hate. There is a gleeful sneering going on about people with non-standard relationships with gender. That is not to say the Trans side is not equally irritating and irrational, but really the sheet volume of prejudiced voices against trans, with a lot of really hateful language, makes many moderates feel like defending them. I think the language around mental illness and sexual deviancy is massively problematic. Stick to keeping them out of women’s sport and most of us are fine with it.
No, I’ve tried to support you on here many times. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt. But what am I meant to think if I take the time to explain things to you, from a position of knowledge and experience, on countless occasions, and yet absolutely none of these things get through. You’re either not terribly bright and therefore unable to assimilate new information (and that’s fine, my mistake), or you’re being wilfully ignorant because it might slightly upset this peculiar identity you’ve forged, which would frankly be more of a concern. By the way, I haven’t insulted you or called you ‘evil’, I just asked you a question.
Put it this way, Os. I have no idea what you or your partner do. Let’s pretend, for arguments sake, your partner is a very well respected oncologist, one of the top cancer specialists in the world, and that you have learned an awful lot about it by spending your daily life with her. Imagine then someone comes along and says to you that cancer isn’t impacted by what your wife says, and that what she says actually makes the cancer worse. It would be pretty annoying, right? Particularly when you know, 100%, that what this random person is saying is completely incorrect. So you take time out to carefully explain, on multiple occasions, what your wife’s work does, and how actually that person (who by the way has zero experience in this field) is completely incorrect. That person completely ignores what you say and carries on spewing the nonsense as if you’d said nothing at all. What would you think of that person, Os?
And this is why most people can't be bothered into getting into debates with you. As soon as someone tries sooner rather than later you revert to stupid comments like this when, inevitably, you can't accept the other person may have a point.
I accept your viewpoint; I just am not that impressed by who you know. I also know a journalist who is a good dude. Although he is in the sports industry, not politics. Even in that industry there are certain incentives that stop journalists having free rein. As an example; would a journalist fully slate a football club if they still require access? I even agreed with you and said in a previous post that I am sure that on a floor level there are a lot of great journalists doing honest work. That doesn’t mean they aren’t being fed lies or being deliberately used to spread lies. Look how sneaky governments are. Look how much people can benefit. There have been coordinated attacks and narratives throughout history. Ultimately, I guess the problem comes from above. The media are only able to report what they’re told/allowed to report. They push agendas and narratives. I don’t know why this upsets you so much that you need to sling insults and deny it. I don’t deny your wife could be brilliant and honest. That doesn’t mean her company isn’t subject to being used by higher powers.
Okay, let me try once more. Yes, they report what they are told in some instances (and this is what you’re supporting Trump and Musk enforcing upon an unquestioning pool) because they have to report what a government is saying. That’s reporting. Trump and Musk are the very people denying reporters access because they also report truths that are uncomfortable, or pick up inconsistencies (by just reporting facts, rather than curated spin), but again you’re supporting that? The very thing you’re against, you support when it comes to them. Strange. Agencies like Reuters and AP also have print and photo journalists on the ground across the world. In many cases risking their lives (Reuters had to extricate one of their reporters from inside Gaza recently. It was quite emotional). Those reporters write and take pictures of what is happening there and then. In situ. They also provide data from on the ground sources - those will often be, in the Gaza example, numbers from sources in Hamas or from the IDF, so need to be treated with appropriate care. They’ll always say when data is from a source like that because obviously it needs caution, and a reporter can’t go and count bodies or missiles themselves (much as they can’t hunt for WMDs in a hostile environment themselves). Those reports and pictures are then sold to the likes of the BBC, Fox News, The Times, The Guardian - whomever, and a lot of the data is sold to governments too. That’s what a ‘raw news’ agency like Reuters and AP will do. Those reports will be then be churned through whatever opinion that buyer wants to put on them - the Mail will likely highlight parts that the Guardian won’t. They’ll form the basis of opinion pieces and comment. But they won’t be sold with any bias attached because they’re raw news pieces. They are utterly ****ing committed to that, in ways you still don’t understand. They also have investigative reporters, which is a whole other kettle of fish, and who are incredibly important, particularly when holding power to account - something I thought you supported? I don’t need you to be ‘impressed’ by who I know. My ego isn’t that delicate. It’s a fact though that I do know, and am personal friends with the editor in chief at Reuters, and my wife is one of the senior directors there. I know the vast majority of people at the top (and obviously my wife knows them all). So I know the decision makers. Personally. I listen to the daily call they have where they talk about the news and what pieces they are running etc. I know and have heard how many times they haven’t run a scoop because they couldn’t absolutely verify it as 100% true, so they’d rather lose it to a competitor than risk their reputation. Because of all that, I can 100% tell you - and this isn’t guessing, this is knowledge - there is no bias against Trump or Musk in the reporting of Reuters. There is nobody there out to get them, it just does not work like that. Well done for knowing a sports reporter though.
