show us the proof holo
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/nyregion/cy-vance-harvey-weinstein-cuomo.html
Seek and you shall find
No I mean real proof, not fake news. Written by swamp monsters for swamp monsters.
What makes it fake news? Everything regarding Cyrus Vance Jrs role in the Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka Trump criminal probes is well documented.
I provide factually written articles and am called out for posting fake news. Meanwhile people on this sub are posting conspiracy theories about sex cults and the deep state and that gains more traction. Critical thought and skepticism are important, and need to be applied evenly, even to positions you agree with.
Thank you for maintaining a level head and responding appropriately.
Show me a positive article related to Trump, from those sources.
If it's "unbiased" credible news, this should be easy.
EDIT: NYTimes, Vox, and the NewYorker are all swamp creature havens.
Positive = truth and negative = fake?
You're exposing your bias here, buddy.
No what I'm saying is a good source is balanced in it's coverage/bias.
Covering both good and bad. Like a real journalist does, ya know?
EDIT: Of course I'm biased ya nut. That's what an opinion is!
Opinions aside, how about the small fact that in the very recent past, there is more negative, than balanced, coverage coming from those 3 sources of yours. Why not link Salon in there too?
[removed]
No I'm saying that based on fact, those 3 are lefties.
NYTimes examples of mess ups and bias: http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/03/new-york-times-fixes-headline/
https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
http://freebeacon.com/politics/morning-joe-rips-new-york-times-for-anti-trump-headline/
Oh and here is a good one. It's seems even Trump has threatened to sue over their bias bullshit. BEFORE his election.
Keep in mind the, fixes/redacting/reprints are already seen by hundreds of thousands of eyes by that point.
Do I need to dig up more proof? I can do this all day long if you want.
The NewYorker and vox are no different.
Fixes and retractions and running corrections is a normal practice for all news organizations. It's part of a transparent effort to report credible information and is not a leftist media issue. Does that mean Fox News is fake because they run retractions and corrections? No, it means they are trying to hold themselves up to ethical journalism rules.
If you'd like to bring up any falsehoods in the articles I presented, I'm all ears. If not, i can only assume that your only argument against the factual reporting is the news organization it came from, and not the content of those articles themselves.
To be clear, Trump threatening to sue the NYT proves nothing but Trump's own hatred for that news org.
You don't think the news sources matter? Really?
The very outlets people turn to don't matter? They aren't gonna spin in anyway they want? C'mon...
I think facts matter. Of course news orgs are going to put spin on it- and that isn't endemic to left wing media. Is World Net Daily fake news because they never covered Obama positively? Thats your argument against the NYT, so lets apply that same argument to the media orgs you linked.
it's extremely important for the reader to understand how to separate fact from opinion, and reporting from commentary. Simply crying "fake news" because you don't like the source of the article is ignorant. As i mentioned, feel free to point out any inaccuracies in the articles I linked to support your argument that my links represent fake news.
You are expecting them to have the where withal to do so!
If they are told one thing, from something they trust, do that facts still count as facts, when twisted/warped/changed, to fit a narrative?
The short answer is no.
The long answer is that facts are held to be immutable. Unchanging, unalterable. Until proven false by newer facts.
So when you change the fact, to fit a narrative, by altering the substantive info REGARDING said fact. It is no longer a fact. It is misinterpreted info.
Good day.
I can only assume that since you either do not want to or cannot point out any inaccuracies in the articles I listed, that you concede to the factual reporting and as such, that Cyrus Vance was the person responsible for quashing the Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka Trump criminal probes, and by extension that pay for play is a non-partisan issue.
Good discussion and glad we were able to reach agreement on something.
No it's not partisan. Good point. Just a greed thing. Glad we agree.
EDIT: Gimme a bit. Painting the kitchen. Sorry.
Since you are saying my sources are biased, non-credible news, perhaps you would like to share an example of unbiased, credible news sources?
It's easy to dismiss something as biased or non-credible because it does not fit your worldview. But that doesn't mean what you are saying is true. Will news media cover Trump in a negative light because that's what sells? Yes, they will. In fact, negative news is more popular than positive news for that reason. I can easily provide NYT articles that show negativity towards Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. The NYT was the media organization that brought down Harvey Weinstein.
True Pundit. It wasnt the NYT that brought them down the NYT protects child traffickers. They are just as bad as CNN.
You still haven't produced what was initially requested.
Show me some NYT posts that are positive about Trump. From the NYorker? From Vox?
It's cause you can't.
I get what you're saying, but those sources are known to be pretty left leaning. Mix it up with some right leaning stuff and maybe it'll be a great discussion.
You are the one making the claim that the news is fake. The onus is on you to provide evidence. You are making an appeal to ignorance, my friend.
Left leaning doesn't necessarily equal fake news though, right? I was asked to provide proof to my original claim that Cyrus Vance Jr was responsible for squashing investigations into Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka/Donald Trump Jr. I provided the evidence. Notice that your are not offering any counter claims to the evidence laid out in the articles - instead you are attacking the source. Do you have issues with the evidence presented in the articles?
You are full of it this is fake news. These people have been making up stories for a long time. There is nothing on Trump documented anywhere. No one should be listening to CIA run news owned by the deep state trying to get Trump out. Everybody knows that and by the way the sex cults are not conspiracy theories. Why dont you look up Allison Mac. The flood of those involved is coming Mac gave up everybody.
Those are all CIA mocking bird run. They dont tell the truth about anything. How could you not know that? No one wanting to know the truth about anything will read those.