> Feeb wrote:
>> They want to destroy the media- that whole stunt is really bad for women who really
>> have a story to tell. That also fits their narrative of trying to prove "every
>> who accuses has not been assaulted."
> You sure make a lot of broad, illogical statements. I have no doubt Weinstein, Bill
> Clinton, and some others are predators. I absolutely believe the women in those cases.
> Then you have stories that have already fallen apart and clear motives for making
> claims up that can never be proven or debunked. If you think a yearbook is proof
> that Roy Moore is a sexual abuser, you are a special kind of stupid. There's a reason
> they aren't handing it over to a 3rd party.
> And just because WaPo uncovered one of Veritas operatives doesn't detract from the
> point and the work they do. We still haven't seen all that they uncovered, though
> I'll agree "opinions in the editorial section" is weak sauce. I think the point is
> Bezos has a lot of say about the direction of the paper. It's undoubtedly a leftist
> outlet with no interest in covering the president fairly.
> I really don't care if O'Keefe has to embarrass himself going at these HUGE corporate
> propaganda outlets. It is already understood by most that the MSM is mostly an arm
> of the DNC. The more people understand that, the better off we'll all be. Quite rich
> seeing people call WaPo the "free press" as if they have journalistic integrity.
> Sad. Just admit it's a biased outlet.
It is a biased outlet. No one is arguing this- the only thing that illustrates is that they select stories to fit their narrative; this does not equate to being "fake" news. Every news outlet does this or we wouldn't need more than one; it's a business with customers. Some people choose not to eat corn flakes because they triggered a website- they eat something else. Same deal. When you watch Fox News they have ads designed to scare old folks into spending money- it's their demographic. Personally I read all the stories I can from many different angles- I never have difficulty understanding what is concrete, evidence based reporting and what is opinion. I also don't have much difficulty with single source stories, (not the case in some of the Moore stuff- multiple Pulitzer Prize winning journalists were in on that and some other "fake" news favorites) especially when that single source is a leak from inside( ironically seems like you applaud this on the one hand? The rebel who gets the secret out.)
What the story I posted does display is that in a concrete incident this particular paper had done what Reagan recommended: trust but verify.
The difference as I see it is that one side is trying to use the burden of empirically supported, evidence based facts while the other just cries that it's fake and attacks character or reputation.
The same tactics are frequently employed by Trump supporters in most outlets. See your post for a pretty good illustration of this and notice the absence of any concrete support for your stance.