FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

[Chicks]

Seth Rich's killing was exploited on Faux “News” and online. His parents are fed up

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/11045...th-rich-murder

[Chicks]

Fucker Carlson's greatest fear
The Faux "News" star is afraid of a lot of things — CRT, immigrants, vaccine mandates — but lately it’s become clearer what his greatest source of terror is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...lify-rcna37317

Wimmen-folk in power. Such an ass.

[finnbow]

The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established, formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign--submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize.

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to the institutions whose work was under examination, nor any connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.

The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand.

So, the publications on the receiving end of Trump's (and Whell's) "fake news" accusations were indeed truthful and accurate (unlike the Lying Dotard himself).

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established, formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign--submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize.

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to the institutions whose work was under examination, nor any connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.

The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand.

So, the publications on the receiving end of Trump's (and Whell's) "fake news" accusations were indeed truthful and accurate (unlike the Lying Dotard himself).

That's some serious egg on Whell's face. It's kind of funny how this long running thread he started has proven again and again and again how a college educated guy with a reasonable amount of intelligence can get everything so wrong when he drinks the bitter dregs served up by modern day conservative thoughtleaders. If he wasn't such an unpleasant fellow on this forum, I could dredge up a bit of sympathy for his plight.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bobabode

That's some serious egg on Whell's face. It's kind of funny how this long running thread he started has proven again and again and again how a college educated guy with a reasonable amount of intelligence can get everything so wrong when he drinks the bitter dregs served up by modern day conservative thoughtleaders. If he wasn't such an unpleasant fellow on this forum, I could dredge up a bit of sympathy for his plight.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Pulitzer Prize Board has an established, formal process by which complaints against winning entries are carefully reviewed. In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign--submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize.

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition. Both reviews were conducted by individuals with no connection to the institutions whose work was under examination, nor any connection to each other. The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.

The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand.

So, the publications on the receiving end of Trump's (and Whell's) "fake news" accusations were indeed truthful and accurate (unlike the Lying Dotard himself).

Forrest versus the trees. The articles were used to advance a media narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. They were filled with allegations from unnamed sources and prompted folks - you know the type - to bleat on about collusion, refer to other folks on the forum who didn't agree with you as "comrade", suggest that the "walls were closing in" on the Trump administration, having late night talk show hosts refer to the President's mouth as Putin's cock holster, etc.

So, yeah, there were some "nuggets" of truth in those stories, and I get why the Pulitzer folks want to avoid reopening 2019 and backtracking. It doesn't negate the fact that the larger media narrative about collusion, to which those stories lent support, fell apart rather spectacularly.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It doesn't negate the fact that the larger media narrative about collusion, to which those stories lent support, fell apart rather spectacularly.

Except it didn't. Mueller made it perfectly clear that Manafort, Gates, and Stone collaborated with Russian intelligence and that Donald Trump and his minions obstructed the investigation.

In the meantime, we now find you trying to obfuscate Trump's involvement in Jan. 6.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Except it didn't. Mueller made it perfectly clear that Manafort, Gates, and Stone collaborated with Russian intelligence and that Donald Trump and his minions obstructed the investigation.

In the meantime, we now find you trying to obfuscate Trump's involvement in Jan. 6.

Except they didn't. We've been down this road before. Let me know if you still need help with this:

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election.

[RickeyM]

did not find sufficient evidence

Is not the same thing as exonerate no matter what you and tRumpty want it to mean. If there was nothing there why was Donny Boy so busy obstructing justice? Innocent people want all revealed if it would prove them innocent. Face it whell, even if they had found outright collusion you'd still be excusing the former guy.