Washington Post Stirs Fear After False Report Of Power Grid Hack By Russia

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: raymundoko

So infowars gets a free pass do they?

Nope, not in my book.

Fake news doesn't get retracted, it gets left out there for the plebs to continually lap up and parrot.

I'm not defending Washington Post, not in any shape or form, so don't try to make out I am.

Just so I understand this, since Infowars usually posts garbage, you think NOTHING from that site can be trusted?

I want to be sure I get your point here.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Chadwickus

Probably as well as your cognitive dissonance....

What, pray tell is my cognitive dissonance?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: raymundoko

So infowars gets a free pass do they?

Nope, not in my book.

Fake news doesn't get retracted, it gets left out there for the plebs to continually lap up and parrot.

I'm not defending Washington Post, not in any shape or form, so don't try to make out I am.

This is going to sting fellow ATS'er but the wild man is more accurate than WAPO has been the last 10 years of just pulling out the reported 'news' from both Infowars verses MSM, that tells you how sad it is. He yells, he makes tough accusations in his speculations and news reports and he is more right than any you can trot out. That is how bad it got Dems, the truth is apparently having to be yelled out to those who are seeking it because the controllers are trying to keep you from it. I would not use Infowars because libs hate it and I want common ground, but the truth speaks loudly.

a reply to: network dude

Not nothing, but pretty damn close to it.

My point is that infowars has some serious issues to carry on about a fear mongering, fake article.

a reply to: Justoneman

Truth?

Like the infowars exclusive Charlie Sheen interview had with Obama??

Better have a long hard look at yourself if you believe Alex Jones is a purveyor of truth!

a reply to: Chadwickus

At least you spelled it right that time :-) I don't think you have any. I think we just disagree on what defines fake news. For me it means fake; not genuine.

If you were sold a diamond and it turned out to be fake, but then the diamond vendor replaced it with a real diamond when caught, would you say they didn't sell you a fake diamond because they fixed the error?

a reply to: Justoneman

Wrong. Boston bombing hoax is all you need to know. Infowars never printed a retraction or apologized for accusing bostons finest of being involved in a plot to blow up innocent people. They grabbed a story from BIN which had made up info and ran with it. They just deleted the story to cover their shame after 4 weeks of their own fanboys calling them out.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I agree with you about infowars. Let's be honest though, you are defending WaPo. By saying they didn't print a fake story just because they fully retracted it days later is a defense of their institution.

The original story was a fake story. It had zero basis in reality. Everyone knew it but them. Again, it's not the first time. They've become a rag.

a reply to: raymundoko

That's my phone which doesn't auto correct misspelled words for me..

I would call the likes of the national inquirer as fake news, and clickbait news sources as well.

Washington Post has bias, for sure, as does most sources...would you call the Daily Mail a fake news source?

ETA: I'm really not trying to defend them, more gobsmacked at the gall of infowars.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yet the National Enquirer has broken MAJOR stories because they pay for information...

I am also not saying WaPo is a fake news source, I'm saying this story was fake news. It's not the first time WaPo has put out fake news either, but their real news heavily outweighs their fake news even if biased.

I would consider BIN a source of fake news for example. I would also consider Infowars a source of fake news just like I consider the Nat Enq as fake news. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes fakes news sources get it right one in a million.

Edit: It's def the boy who cried wolf syndrome for these fake sources.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Justoneman

Wrong. Boston bombing hoax is all you need to know. Infowars never printed a retraction or apologized for accusing Boston's finest of being involved in a plot to blow up innocent people. They grabbed a story from BIN which had made up info and ran with it. They just deleted the story to cover their shame after 4 weeks of their own fanboys calling them out.

You are on a tangent. The big difference and the VERY thing I am pointing out is on the high number of fake proven stories presented as the 'truth' over and over at WAPO and NYT. They do it for all their freedom hating shills and their own riches. I am not saying there are no mistakes or i that I do agree with Infowars on many things. I have found myself repeatedly witnessing the truth be compromised by the likes of WAPO at this point. THAT is the sad reality. The MSM are liars and sycophants for the rich and we all see it clearly, no arguments.

Many true stories in the MSM over the years to lure us into trusting them 100%, but they have told so many whoppers the last 40-50 years I am, we are, forced to consider an Infowars , a WND and others you disagree with for alternative opinions, warts and all.

a reply to: Chadwickus

When a narrative needs to be pushed, the MSM is used. Think back at the three times Obama tried to invade Syria using the MSM to drive some BS point, only to have it fall apart. Or the WMD fiasco. This is another one of those times. The MSM is helping push the narrative of a Russian Hack so that all the mindless drones remember is Russia=evil.

I know you are smart enough to realize this, perhaps you feel that your status here as a firm debunker limits you from speaking as someone with conspiracy smarts, but it's about as plane as the nose on your face. And I don't think the conspiracy world is getting smarter, just the administration is underestimating the public.

Remember, the hacking story is all about the e-mails Wiki leaks provided. And Wiki leaks has said repeatedly that they didn't get their data from a Russian Source. So someone is lying here. The best thing to do would be to forget this. But it seems the Obama admin wishes to push this into the ground.

a reply to: Chadwickus


The entirety of the MSM is fake. On alt media truth is not under MSM control,Deal with it.

a reply to: everyone

Quite the blanket statement there. And ridiculously stupid...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: everyone

Quite the blanket statement there. And ridiculously stupid...

Name me 1 trustworthy MSM outlet.

a reply to: network dude

In other words, the mainstream media issues corrections when they report a story incorrectly. Does Infowars do that?

a reply to: everyone

I don't have to, I just need to link to just 1 non fake article.

a reply to: network dude

Remember, the hacking story is all about the e-mails Wiki leaks provided. And Wiki leaks has said repeatedly that they didn't get their data from a Russian Source. So someone is lying here.

You are. Here is what Assange said, emphasis mine:

"Our source is not the Russian government," Assange told "The Sean Hannity Show."

"So in other words, let me be clear," Hannity asked, "Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

"That's correct," Assange responded.

Not CNN.

It's as if some people think Russians are so stupid they cannot think of "plausible deniability." How was Assange supposed to know that an organized band of hackers were a front for Russian intelligence?

The best thing to do would be to forget this.

Why? You don't have a problem with Russian spooks trying to sow discontent in the American body politic?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

In other words, the mainstream media issues corrections when they report a story incorrectly. Does Infowars do that?

NO, they usually do not. Which is why most folks laugh at Infowars as a source for anything other than hearing AJ scream loudly and flail his arms. But none of that makes the story in the OP false.

originally posted by: DJW001


Why? You don't have a problem with Russian spooks trying to sow discontent in the American body politic?

LOL, I'm a Putin fanboy donchaknow. Actually, I'd rather all countries would MTOFB, but we all know that won't happen. We all know the US won't stop funding dissidents to topple foreign regimes, and North Korea won't stop pretending it has massive first strike capabilities. Russia will hack us again, and we will hack them, again. To pretend this isn't a daily occurrence is laughable. I know you are smarter than to think this is an isolated incident. Jesus, they even post this stuff in the news.

Remember that guy Snowden? Yea, he pointed out a few flaws in the "we lead by example" moral high ground.

I'm still a patriot, and still damn proud to be American, but I'm not so stupid that I pretend we are blameless in all this. And I sure hope you are just pretending to be this clueless.