No, the results are not the same.
One is completely fabricated, the other can be found to be factual, with the benefit of the doubt going to one side or the other.
If someone puts an add on craigslist that says "$20 to protest Mike Brown shooting," then writes a story entitled "Dems Posting Ads on Craigslist for Protestors," that is fraudulent.
If CNN covers Donald Trump using his own words and provides and interpretation of them based on their liberal/conservative beliefs, that is bias.
It's not even remotely the same thing.
@jigoMoving this out of the either thread into this one.
when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.
When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.
When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.
This all happened in the election.
Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.
It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.
Moving this out of the either thread into this one.
when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.
When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.
When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.
This all happened in the election.
Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.
It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.
How is presenting conclusions you know is wrong because you already have the proof really any different than another source jumping to conclusions on partial information.
Can you provide actual examples?
Are you making an argument for corruption of media or against Donald Trump?Forgot to mention the National Enquirer's purchase of the rights to the Playboy playmate's story of her affair with Trump while she was married to his current wife.
The story was purchased but never published, with contract stipulating that it could not be propagated in any other publication or social media outlet.
Is it possible that publication of this story during the "pussy grab" controversy could have affected the outcome of the election? Inquiring minds want to know!
Moving this out of the either thread into this one.
when the station has a full quote, cuts the sentence in half, giving it a completely different meaning, then talks about that, that's something more than talking about someone's words.
When they have a full 60 second video, cut the first half out to take away the context, then pretend they don't know what happened before the 30 seconds they show, that's more than just interpreting what happened.
When they have a live video clip that is the opposite of the what they wanted to happen, then cut that clip out when they replay the rest of the video, that's more than interpreting what happened.
This all happened in the election.
Just yesterday CNN criticized readers of the NY Times for believing what they read when the NY Times made a mistake.
It's just nuts how hard they try to manipulate people with misinformation when they fully know the facts.
How is presenting conclusions you know is wrong because you already have the proof really any different than another source jumping to conclusions on partial information.
I did throughout the election. the one they went to the most was the video of the trump person hitting the guy being escorted out. CNN never showed the whole video. The whole video showed the guy was sitting a row or two in front of the guy who hit him, and the reason he was being escorted out is he was standing, cursing at and flipping off all of the people right behind him. He was pretty much doing everything he could to get someone to lose their cool.
CNN not only never showed that part, which they had to have, they pretended he was being escorted out from far below after peaceful protests. Not only that, they somehow tried to blame not the guy who was being a complete jackass, and not the guy who hit him, but rather Trump himself (using another out of context video clip).
The other video example was the night of the Chicago rally that Trump canceled. They were cutting from different cameras and caught a "protestor" punching a Trump supporter. Not only did they never mention what they just aired, they later repaired multiple times the same series of clips with only that single clip edited out while they continued to call the protesters peaceful and somehow blame Trump for canceling the event.
Their own cameras captured something that contradicted how they wanted people to believe what happened so they edited out their own evidence and continued like it never happened,
Are you making an argument for corruption of media or against Donald Trump?
Both?
Willful large-scale corporate media manipulation of message and context to benefit the Trump candidacy.