Two Headlines: Somebody is Lying

Caught this on Whatfinger. I offer it without much comment, except to mention that something doesn't smell right.

Newsmax: Report: Fla. Woman ‘Infatuated’ With Columbine Found Dead CLICK HERE
Washington Times: Sol Pais captured: Woman obsessed with Columbine massacre in custody CLICK HERE

Source

Make of it what you will. I am past being cynical at this point.

ETA: As of this writing, both of those headlines are still next to one another.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

dont take it personal but what i make of it is that news site looks like ass and i wouldnt trust it



www.google.com... -8

^^^all say dead so i am going to go with that

Add the two together, woman found dead while in custody.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Whatfinger is an amalgamation website...

a reply to: MisterMcKill

i get that

clearly they are slipping

Went to the sight. Clicked both links and both stories go to articles about her being dead. The Washington times article is titled differently on it's actual page.

originally posted by: 1Angrylightbulb
Went to the sight. Clicked both links and both stories go to articles about her being dead. The Washington times article is titled differently on it's actual page.

Exactly. The headline is misleading at best. But many people do not read articles. Somebody skimming headlines would be confused, or inclined to believe that she was taken alive.

www. washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/17/sol-pais-captured-woman-obsessed-columbine-massacr/

The washing times ulr say captured, but the 1st line in the article says she's dead.

Edit: if you google "Sol Pais captured: Woman obsessed with Columbine massacre in custody" it will show a tiny portion of the cached article stating she was captured, but i get a 404 error trying to view it.

originally posted by: Jason79
www. washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/17/sol-pais-captured-woman-obsessed-columbine-massacr/

The washing times ulr say captured, but the 1st line in the article says she's dead.

Indeed. Talk about poisoning the well.

We DEMAND to see an unredacted autopsy !!! 😎

a reply to: MisterMcKill

Schroedingers cat was the murderer.

What happened to Journalism? now we can use the term with inverted commas, it's that laughable.

I mean no disrespect to the genuine journalists, but to the rest... opinion pieces is not news morons.

But was she alive to begin with??

I heard on Fox that she was in custody. I tend to believe Fox. They are fair and balanced after all.

denver.cbslocal.com...

This video says she was running through the woods naked with a shotgun, FBI agent quoted as saying "we got her" the news anchors at the end of the video we saying no word on if she was dead or alive.

originally posted by: olaru12
I heard on Fox that she was in custody. I tend to believe Fox. They are fair and balanced after all.

What you probably heard was CNN reporting that Fox said she was in custody.

Since there is no current or alternative universe where you listen to Fox.

To the OP, it's probably just someone jumping the gun with a headline that needs fixed now.

Not like that's ever happened...

Except every other day in our "news".

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: 1Angrylightbulb
Went to the sight. Clicked both links and both stories go to articles about her being dead. The Washington times article is titled differently on it's actual page.

Exactly. The headline is misleading at best. But many people do not read articles. Somebody skimming headlines would be confused, or inclined to believe that she was taken alive.

Oh, dear. The only issue is that a copywriter printed a misleading headline, which was unlikely to have been intentional. So the claim that "someone is lying" is needlessly sensational. It leads one to believe yet another conspiracy is afoot when it is just as easily explained by sloppy journalism.

The latest is that they are saying it she was found in the mountains dead from an apparently self inflicted gunshot after running naked through the woods

Seems an odd situation, especially for a suicide and to be allegedly infatuated with something that happened even before she was born seems strange too. But hey ho she's dead without trial so we'll never know

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: MisterMcKill

dont take it personal but what i make of it is that news site looks like ass and i wouldnt trust it

www.google.com... -8

^^^all say dead so i am going to go with that

Drudge looks like ass too. What is your point? Only pretty websites are trustworthy? And why would I take anything you say personally? I have been reading your posts for years. I do not share your opinions, but I am aware of them. That is why I generally ignore them. But again, what is the point? I am reporting facts: there are contradictory accounts of the matter at hand. Are you saying that there are not? Because I just offered evidence of impossibly different stories that are both being reported by purported news organizations. You don't have to care, but you ought to know. I'm just the messenger. You are free to believe the official story without question. Personally, I need more than that, but if the MSM consensus is your bag, I hope it is a light burden to bear. It is too heavy for me.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: 1Angrylightbulb
Went to the sight. Clicked both links and both stories go to articles about her being dead. The Washington times article is titled differently on it's actual page.

Exactly. The headline is misleading at best. But many people do not read articles. Somebody skimming headlines would be confused, or inclined to believe that she was taken alive.

Oh, dear. The only issue is that a copywriter printed a misleading headline, which was unlikely to have been intentional. So the claim that "someone is lying" is needlessly sensational. It leads one to believe yet another conspiracy is afoot when it is just as easily explained by sloppy journalism.

Right. Because journalists do not have editors. Or publishers. Or any oversight whatsoever. But I hate to break it to you: you are apologizing for someone that you do not know. You are assuming that it was unintentional without anything to back that assertion up, and you accuse me of sensationalism. Whatever. I neither wrote nor published the headlines in question. If you have beef with my post title, you need to think hard about the headlines that I am referencing. If you think that I am the one being misleading, you have missed the point by a lunar mile.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: MisterMcKill

dont take it personal but what i make of it is that news site looks like ass and i wouldnt trust it

www.google.com... -8

^^^all say dead so i am going to go with that

The site really looks biased to me. It is an aggregator but priority (top of the page) and volume is over the top one-sided propaganda. Every image on the site is pro-Trump or anti-Democrat.

Even the name sucks - bigly!