a reply to: maria_stardust
As you state the number is low, please explain the multitudes of evidence I have provided thru links which shows the opposite. The number we KNOW is
low based upon the size of the potential pool, and only those caught are exposed, imagine the proportion we do not know.
The past two years of retractions from some of what use to be the most respected news outlets in our Free Press has been stunning in comparison to the
previous 10 years, least we forget the numerous tweets from biased reporters that are also proven to be outright biased lies which are simply deleted
but never corrected, and the damage at that point is done.
I have worked as part of the Free Press for many more years than I am willing to admit and have seen it all first hand. People will do anything to get
ahead, and many instances of fraud uncovered goes unreported. The very extensive examples I provided are only the tip of the iceberg, only revealed
publically because they were to be uncovered by other journalists with actual integrity and armed with the real facts.
The internet has become a garden of lies, for all factions. They use anonymous blogs to publish hit piece after hitpiece, knowing that the facts are
not factual at all, then turn around and publish the material based upon the anonymous story published by so and so, without repercussions because it
was published already, and since they themselves were already the original source for the internet publisher, anonymity protects that from ever being
uncovered. How many stories, or details have been published based on Reddit posts ?
Headlines will glare one thing, Drudge, Fox, CNN, and especially organizations of the Free Press like Washington Post and NY Times, in the actual body
of the story will say something else. You ask who I trust, sadly none but myself. The only way to discover the truth is from facts I gather myself.
This is not to say these same organizations do not on occassion publish truthful stories, but always control the impact of the article for the reader
they wish to reach.
I have for awhile wished to prepare a thread on how articles are worded, the information included and revealed, can easily be slanted to convey the
message they want the reader to believe. They ALL have agendas of their own. Whether a story about climate change, which contains false numbers from
the scientific community and includes a story of a starving polar bear, only later to learn the starving polar bear had nothing to do with climate
change, and the fake numbers are not revealed, but the reporter writing the story only wants you to conclude that, careful they do not make those
claims, but imply them to the reader so it is believed to be the case.
It's not fake news, but planted biased opinions, whether it's a real starving polar bear or just a doctored picture with zero factual information of
what actually transpired. That from National Geographic whom most likely would benefit tremendously from climate change money, after all, someone has
to save the starving polar bears. Today, our politicians are experts at the 30 second soundbite. Yesterdays passing of the justice reform package with
bipartisan support is a good example, some Republican members are now against it because "child molesters will get out early" which is not true but
they can say it, many will hear or read it and it becomes their truth.
I suppose it's a part of who we are as humans that we manipulate one another but make no mistakes. The dumbing down of the majority of the public is
intentional, those who glance over headlines, or those who gather their news from biased internet blogs like Buzzfeed, or True Pundit, or just word of
mouth from others are indeed vulnerable from the endemic plague of influence peddling that exist in our Free Press, one only needs to pay attention.