Harvard: Trump Has Set A 'New Standard'.
The news is reality based, so the so-called "negative" coverage is to be expected.
Chocura750 wrote:
The news is reality based, so the so-called "negative" coverage is to be expected.
'Reality based', you say? I see. So a report based on a 'source' or 'sources' who are 'close to the topic', speaking 'on condition of anonymity' due to the 'sensitive nature' of the sensational revelation being yelled from the rooftops is considered 'reality based' nowadays? Not on my planet. If some 'anonymous source' cannot man up and put his name to his story, then he has no credibility, because he's simply attempting to avoid scrutiny. Those who try to avoid scrutiny are either cowards or liars; I have no time for neither. And by the way, isn't it amazing how these 'anonymous sources' all seem to have a story that just happens to fit right into the narrative of the day just like a hand in a glove? Did you not see how the Washington Post got their asses handed to them last week for publishing a string of false reports based on 'anonymous sources'? There was actually a list going around.
No. There is no 'reality' in the negative reporting currently emanating from the mainstream media. Wasn't yesterday, isn't today and won't be tomorrow. If there was, there would be credible citations from real people who are prepared to stand by their assertions. That ain't happening, because they don't exist. As they say around here, that dog just won't hunt.
Larry the Legend wrote:
'Reality based', you say? I see. So a report based on a 'source' or 'sources' who are 'close to the topic', speaking 'on condition of anonymity' due to the 'sensitive nature' of the sensational revelation being yelled from the rooftops is considered 'reality based' nowadays? Not on my planet. If some 'anonymous source' cannot man up and put his name to his story, then he has no credibility, because he's simply attempting to avoid scrutiny. Those who try to avoid scrutiny are either cowards or liars; I have no time for neither. And by the way, isn't it amazing how these 'anonymous sources' all seem to have a story that just happens to fit right into the narrative of the day just like a hand in a glove? Did you not see how the Washington Post got their asses handed to them last week for publishing a string of false reports based on 'anonymous sources'? There was actually a list going around.
No. There is no 'reality' in the negative reporting currently emanating from the mainstream media. Wasn't yesterday, isn't today and won't be tomorrow. If there was, there would be credible citations from real people who are prepared to stand by their assertions. That ain't happening, because they don't exist. As they say around here, that dog just won't hunt.
'Reality based', you say? I see. So a report bas... (
show quote)
Great post, Larry. Right to the point!!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.