Shadowgate

Water John

Dohnjoe, would it be safe to listen to Mike Pence tonight?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So he says he wasnt involved in the film

Well I mean if he says that it must be true. Alex Jones wouldn't lie or distort the truth.

Regardless, you still haven't actually addressed my point.
She worked for him and for Info Wars. Therefore she has no journalistic integrity.

You have also been very evasive about your position here.
What exactly are you arguing?
That she was the one good and honest journalist at info Wars?
That info Wars is a good and honest source for information?

Also, not sure about you, but to me when a conspiracy theory is being rejected by Alex Jones and he's doing a lot of distancing from it...
Kinda another red flag there...

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

My take-away is: don't watch trashy news like CNN or Fox. And certainly stay away from ultra trashy YT conspiracy videos by ex-models on Infowars that get insto-banned by major platforms for being hot garbage and borderline hate speech

I see your giving ABC a pass for covering up for rapists and peadophiles

How many poor kids got abused while they sat on that for 3 years

Cheerful Spring2

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hehsQlHxt2M

So he says he wasnt involved in the film

Fact she went after Alex Friends and clashed with members of the republican party, maybe she has ruffled a few feathers? Either way her video not going to wake people up.

Debunkers still can't separate the Russiagate nonsense from the Qanon nonsense.

Whoever set up this psychological operation got a large mass of people believing Trump some saviour who's going to rescue kids from adult rapists?

Do they not listen to Trump talk? Trump talks about having sex with his daughter, you have insight to his mind, His having fantasies of sleeping with his kid.

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

I see your giving ABC a pass

I didn't mention ABC. Tip: people can't read your mind

If you hate these outlets, cool, but you're here promoting conspiracies from some of the worst sources possible, so I'll take that view with a sack of salt

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I didn't mention ABC. Tip: people can't read your mind

If you hate these outlets, cool, but you're here promoting conspiracies from some of the worst sources possible, so I'll take that view with a sack of salt

Just a reminder why enno is trying to go down this tangent.
I pointed to a quote from a reporter from the New York Times that states that Qanon believes and pushers are promoting and sharing this documentary.
In response he posted links and rants to what he is claiming is the failures of the mainstream media.

So because according to him, ABC covered up child abuse, a reporter from the New York Times is obviously lying about Qanon promoting this bull**** documentary.

I'm still not sure of his stance on Qanon on whether it's a viable theory or complete bull****.

I had assumed most conspiracy theorists realised that Info Wars and those attached were complete bull**** artists.
But enno had proven that wrong.

Maybe I'm also wrong in assuming that most conspiracy theorists her know Qanon is nonsense too.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Just a reminder why enno is trying to go down this tangent.
I pointed to a quote from a reporter from the New York Times that states that Qanon believes and pushers are promoting and sharing this documentary.
In response he posted links and rants to what he is claiming is the failures of the mainstream media.

So because according to him, ABC covered up child abuse, a reporter from the New York Times is obviously lying about Qanon promoting this bull**** documentary.

I'm still not sure of his stance on Qanon on whether it's a viable theory or complete bull****.

I had assumed most conspiracy theorists realised that Info Wars and those attached were complete bull**** artists.
But enno had proven that wrong.

Maybe I'm also wrong in assuming that most conspiracy theorists her know Qanon is nonsense too.

Yeah, news media and academia often contradict the more silly conspiracy narratives, so people who believe in that stuff attack those sources. One technique is to focus on isolated cases, usually unrelated.

e.g. "here's a mistake an RTE reporter made in 1992, therefore nothing RTE news produces is the truth" type of thing

Ignoring the fact that conspiracy outlets (like Infowars) systematically put out false info

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I didn't mention ABC. Tip: people can't read your mind

If you hate these outlets, cool, but you're here promoting conspiracies from some of the worst sources possible, so I'll take that view with a sack of salt

It was in the examples I gave you nice try lol



For the record I dont believe everything from Alex Jones /Qanon or other sites
like many CT here I look at all information the truth usually lies somewhere in between
As you guys said there's some truth in there

That's not sufficent for the sceptics here you have to agree or disagree with it totally
But is seems to be impossible as discussion is not what they are after

You post something that you think might interest the people who frequent the board
The Sceptic Hyenas arrive and the name calling begins

They like to think they are protecting everyone from dangerous nutjobs LOL
Shows the contempt they have for anyone that comes here to try and research a topic
how dose the saying go full of their own self importance

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

.

So because according to him, ABC covered up child abuse,
.

Which you both seem to be ok with

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

For the record I dont believe everything from Alex Jones /Qanon or other sites
like many CT here I look at all information the truth usually lies somewhere in between
As you guys said there's some truth in there

Yes there is usually some truth at the start, but it's taken out of context and spun into something else completely, bull****. But bull**** that is attractive to people who have those pre-held beliefs. That's how this circus works. Alex Jones, Pizza-gate, Qanon, Deep state - it's bull****, just different flavours of it. Same with the far-left stuff.

Dohnjoe

enno99 wrote: »

No according to the ABC reporter LOL
Which you both seem to be ok with

I didn't see/read your ABC thing/view, no comment on it, so don't start attributing anything to me. I was referring to media in general using 2 examples.

enno99

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I didn't see/read your ABC thing/view, no comment on it, so don't start attributing anything to me. I was referring to media in general using 2 examples.

Convenient

Now you know would you agree by your standards that the companies and all who work for them are scumbags and highly paid ones at that
I mean they tried to destroy a kids life and covered up for a peadophile

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Which you both seem to be ok with

Lol. This is your most desperate tactic yet.

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

The Sceptic Hyenas arrive and the name calling begins

The only one here calling people names and accusing people of being ok with the covering up of child abuse is you...

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

The only one here calling people names and accusing people of being ok with the covering up of child abuse is you...

So would you agree by your standards that the companies and all who work for them are scumbags and highly paid ones at that
I mean they tried to destroy a kids life and covered up for a peadophile

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So would you agree by your standards that the companies and all who work for them are scumbags and highly paid ones at that
I mean they tried to destroy a kids life and covered up for a peadophile

Again you're expecting an answer to a random off topic point while you've not addressed any of the questions put to you.

But to answer your question here, I don't think the two situations are comparable.
Alex Jones and his Info Wars are exclusively for the purpose of creating and spreading propaganda and bull****. Even if they acted completely perfectly and without flaw, that's still their purpose.
So any journalist who works for them is by definition ok with that. Therefore by definition has no journalistic integrity. And conversely Alex Jones and the higher ups recognize that they will produce bull**** for them, which is why they'd hire those reporters.

On the other hand, in the case of an actual news organisation like ABC, they are an actual news organisation with standards and oversight.
Do they always meet those standards? No.
Do they never do shady stuff? Again no.
(And this is assuming that you are accurate in your accusations, which I don't really trust given your habit of misrepresenting things.)

I'm not sure how ABC being bad relates to a New York Times reporter lying though...

Now I've answered your question in full. I expect you'll continue to ignore any question put to you.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Again you're expecting an answer to a random off topic point while you've not addressed any of the questions put to you.

But to answer your question here, I don't think the two situations are comparable.
Alex Jones and his Info Wars are exclusively for the purpose of creating and spreading propaganda and bull****. Even if they acted completely perfectly and without flaw, that's still their purpose.
So any journalist who works for them is by definition ok with that. Therefore by definition has no journalistic integrity. And conversely Alex Jones and the higher ups recognize that they will produce bull**** for them, which is why they'd hire those reporters.

On the other hand, in the case of an actual news organisation like ABC, they are an actual news organisation with standards and oversight.
Do they always meet those standards? No.
Do they never do shady stuff? Again no.
(And this is assuming that you are accurate in your accusations, which I don't really trust given your habit of misrepresenting things.)

I'm not sure how ABC being bad relates to a New York Times reporter lying though...

Now I've answered your question in full. I expect you'll continue to ignore any question put to you.

Which makes it all the more egregious they are supposed to be reputable news organisation
everyday people dont look to infowars for their news

And your criticism is they are shady and substandard

Same can be said for the employees of ABC they know now that their bosses covered up for a peadophile
only one with integrity there was the leaker
and to that they got a young girl fired from her job on another news network even though she denied being the leaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIKhWzP3TC0

Here is the anchor admitting it seems you overlooked it in my previous post

As for new york times reporter who also worked at buzz feed I explained that earlier

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

As for new york times reporter who also worked at buzz feed I explained that earlier

Yes.
You also keep ignoring points and questions to go down this random tangent to defend this info Wars employee and her Qanon adjacent bull**** movie.

McHardcore

As long as they arent harming anyone they should be allowed to say what they want.

King Mob

McHardcore wrote: »

As long as they arent harming anyone they should be allowed to say what they want.

Who's saying they can't?

People are free to spout whatever bull**** they like.
But that doesn't mean that places like YouTube and Facebook have to give them video channels to do so and money from and revenue.
They are free to make their own website and host their videos as much as they like.

But folks like this lady aren't happy about that cause that means less exposure and less and revenue.

Also conversely people are free to call bull**** on stuff like that.
Calling bull**** on stuff that is bull**** doesn't prevent or block people from spreading it.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.
You also keep ignoring points and questions to go down this random tangent to defend this info Wars employee and her Qanon adjacent bull**** movie.

How is it random you brought up NYT

You are criticising something you perceive as propaganda with propaganda from a different source that you believe is correct
Im just pointing it out to you


If you dont like long documentaries here is a short one that gives you a jist of what its about

5.46 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRLQaExdgm8

Could it be something that is easily debunked and used by MSM and others discredit any other scandal that may arise

Thats possible nothing is ever black and white with these things

Like private contractors having unauthorised access to NSA data base as 2 FISA judges have written about

And discussed here by Adm Mike Rogers

5.48 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIJGH9RS2Fc

He explains what it unmasking means

2.07 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbM1bW7GiuQ

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/23/joe-digenova-discusses-possibilities-from-former-nsa-director-mike-rogers-working-with-u-s-attorney-john-durham/

Joe diGenova Discusses Possibilities from Former NSA Director Mike Rogers Working With U.S. Attorney John Durham…

The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were conducting searches and then removing, or ‘exporting’, the results. Later on, the FBI said all of the exported material was deleted.

Who were these contractors remains to be seen

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

How is it random you brought up NYT

You are criticising something you perceive as propaganda with propaganda from a different source that you believe is correct
Im just pointing it out to you

Yes. I quoted a New York Times reporter.
You are now saying that because ABC covered up child abuse (accordding to you) this reporter from NYT is lying about your girl's documentary.
A very bizarre and desperate argument.

enno99 wrote: »

Who were these contractors ?

Again a question you're asking while you refuse to answer any.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. I quoted a New York Times reporter.
You are now saying that because ABC covered up child abuse (accordding to you) this reporter from NYT is lying about your girl's documentary.
A very bizarre and desperate argument.


Again a question you're asking while you refuse to answer any.

Sorry I've edited the post

The question was in general the names have been redacted from the reports
I didnt think you would have the answer

Do you want me to post evidence of why we shouldn't trust a NYT /Buzzfeed reporter using your standards

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Do you want me to post evidence of why we shouldn't trust a NYT /Buzzfeed reporter using your standards

No I'd prefer if you'd answer the points and questions already put to you rather than go down random tangents.

But not going to hold my breath there...

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

No I'd prefer if you'd answer the points and questions already put to you rather than go down random tangents.

But not going to hold my breath there...

You keep repeating this
Maybe you have missed them because you have missed lots of other stuff here

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

You are now saying that because ABC covered up child abuse (accordding to you) this reporter from NYT is lying about your girl's documentary.

.

No i explained this earlier

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

You keep repeating this
Maybe you have missed them because you have missed lots of other stuff here

Nope. You are continuously dodging questions and points.
Not sure why you are trying to pretend otherwise...

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. You are continuously dodging questions and points.
Not sure why you are trying to pretend otherwise...

I don't feel especially guilty when I'm not that bothered to address odd deflecting questions.

Here is your view on that

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Here is your view on that

Lol sure. If you consider them deflecting questions.

But you should make up your mind if you're openly dodging or pretending not to dodge.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Who's saying they can't?

People are free to spout whatever bull**** they like.
But that doesn't mean that places like YouTube and Facebook have to give them video channels to do so and money from and revenue.
They are free to make their own website and host their videos as much as they like.

It's nearly always a case of "Alex Jones is terrible, but my version of Alex Jones is fine" in these types of threads

Bull**** is bull****, it shouldn't matter how much it appeals to someone's political leanings.